Sanjay Kumar Alias Fauji. ……………… v. State of Uttarakhand

bail in reference to First Information Report dated 30.11.2024 bearing FIR No. 0757 of 2024 P.S. Patel Nagar, District Dehradun, which was lodged against two persons namely Arjun and Sachin for the offence punishable under Section 103 of BNS, 2023.

2. This is the Second Bail Application. The First Bail Application was dismissed as not pressed on 07.04.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated as he was not named in the FIR and the only two persons namely Arjun and Sachin were named in the FIR. He submits that on 01.02.2024 the applicant was called at Police Chowki for interrogation and thereafter Sachin, who was named in the FIR was arrested on 01.12.2024 however he has not disclosed the name of the applicant for his involvement in the commission of the crime in which the person namely Manjesh was murdered. The another person Arjun, who was also named in the FIR was also arrested on 02.12.2024 and in his confessional statement he disclosed the involvement of the present applicant in the commission of crime. Thereafter, on 03.12.2024 the applicant 2 was called at ISBT Police Chowki for interrogation and on the same date he was arrested and recovery of “key” of the vehicle of deceased was shown to be recovered from the applicant.

4. Mr. Parikshit Saini argued that there is no any evidence against the applicant except the confessional statement of the co- accused Arjun and the recovery of “key” as shown is planted one. He further submits that even as per the prosecution Arjun and Sachin, who are named in the FIR take active role in commission of crime. Mr. Parikshit Saini further submits that so far as the confessional statement of Arjun with regard to the disclosure the name of present applicant is concerned is not admissible particularly when another co-accused Sachin have not disclosed the name of the applicant though both of them have active role in the commission of offence as per prosecution.

5. Learned counsel also submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the present applicant is languishing in jail since 03.12.2024 and uptill date the charges has yet not been framed, therefore, the applicant deserves for bail particularly since there is no need of the custodial interrogation of the applicant. Apart from this, he submits that at the time of arrest the applicant was not provided ground of arrest and as such his arrest is bad and therefore deserves for bail. In support of his submission he placed reliance on various orders passed by the different Coordinate Bench of this court as well as judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Others (2025) SCC Online SC 269.

6. On the other side, learned Additional Advocate General for the State Mr. G.S. Sandhu vehemently oppose the bail application by submitting that whether the confessional statement of the other co-accused is admissible or not, the same is the subject matter of 3 the trial and so far as the present case is concerned there was strong motive of the applicant for commission of the offence. He also submits that there are sufficient evidences against the applicant with regard to connection of applicant with another co- accused Arjun and Sachin who were infact hired by the applicant and the recovery of “key” of vehicle of the deceased cannot be said to be a planted one. He submits that admittedly the charge- sheet was filed long back but uptill date the charges has yet not been framed even then the applicant does not deserve for bail since there are sufficient evidence to connect the applicant in commission of crime and if the applicant release on bail then there may not turn up in the trial at the time of framing of charge.

7. On the other side, Mr. Narayan Hari Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant, submits that the statement of the wife of the applicant was also recorded by the concerned I.O. wherein she has disclosed that on 30.11.2024 in the morning the co-accused Arjun came in their house and there was some conversation with her husband and thereafter his husband leave him near Graphic Era Institution in his own car but when the applicant was called by the police for recording his statement on 01.12.2024 this fact he has not disclosed and deliberately suppressed. He further submits that statement of the wife of the applicant also corroborated with the confessional statement of the co-accused ‘Arjun’ and further location of mobile of the applicant and both the co-accused persons namely Arjun and Sachin was found at the place of occurence till 8:45 PM of 29.11.2024, the date when the incident was happened. He further argued that there is regular threat to the complainant, who is the real brother of the deceased, therefore, if the applicant is enlarged on bail there may be a possibility that he may cause any harm to the complainant, in support of which one of the complaint is also placed on record by 4 way of supplementary affidavit. Mr. Narayan Hari Gupta also submits that the judgments as relied upon are of no help and while considering the bail gravity of the offence has to be seen.

8. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties no doubt at the time of arrest the ground of arrest was not there but only on this ground alone the applicant cannot be enlarged on bail and the gravity of the offence has to be seen. The judgment as relied upon is of no help taking into consideration the gravity of the offence. On perusal of the statement of the applicant recorded on 01.12.2024 it reveals that the applicant suppressed this fact that on 30.11.2024 the co-accused Arjun came to his house though his wife disclosed this fact in her statement recorded by the concerned I.O., which is also corroborated with the statement of the co-accused Arjun. No doubt the charge-sheet has been filed and the present applicant is languishing in jail since

01.12.2024 but taking into consideration the gravity of the offence and threat perception to the complainant, this court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve for bail.

9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

07.10.2025 PR