Rohit v. St at e of Ut t arakhand

This is t he first bail applicat ion under Sect ion 439 of t he Code of Crim inal Procedure, 1973, m oved on behalf of t he applicant–Rohit , aged about 25 years, son of Dharam Singh, a resident of Village Langdabhoj , Police St at ion Gadarpur, Dist rict Udham Singh Nagar, j udicial cust ody since 07.02.2024 connect ion wit h FI R No. 34 of 2024, regist ered under Sect ions 302 and 201 of t he I ndian Penal Code, 1860 ( I PC) .

2. Heard Mr. Adit ya Prat ap Singh, learned counsel for t he applicant , and Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. for t he St at e. Perused t he record.

3. The case arises out of an FI R lodged on

04.02.2024 by one Dharm endra Singh, who is t he brot her of t he deceased Jaspal Singh @ Vishal. The inform ant has st at ed t hat t he deceased was in a DJ 1 business part nership wit h t he applicant and one Mohit for t he past t wo years and t hat t hey were residing t oget her. On 03.02.2024, t he inform ant allegedly received a call from co- accused Mohit , who inform ed him about t he presence of a body lying on t he highway. The inform ant approached t he local police and ident ified t he body from a phot ograph shown t o him . I t was alleged t hat t he applicant and co- accused Mohit m urdered t he inform ant ’s brot her and disposed of t he body.

4. During t he invest igat ion, t he prosecut ion claim s t hat on t he night of 02.02.2024, following a disput e regarding t he sharing of business proceeds, t he applicant st ruck t he deceased wit h a wooden st ick on t he head and leg, result ing in fat al inj uries. The body was allegedly t ransport ed on a m ot orcycle wit h t he assist ance of co- accused Mohit and dum ped on t he Rudrapur–Kashipur Highway.

5. The learned counsel for t he applicant subm it s t hat t he applicant has been falsely im plicat ed and t hat t here is no direct eyewit ness t o t he alleged assault . I t is furt her cont ended t hat t he alleged recovery of t he st ick and shoes of t he deceased at t he inst ance of t he applicant is unsupport ed by a disclosure m em o and is not corroborat ed by any forensic analysis. The counsel subm it s t hat t here is no m ot ive est ablished for t he applicant t o have com m it t ed t he crim e, part icularly since t he deceased was his business part ner. I t is also point ed out t hat co- accused Mohit has already been grant ed bail by t he learned Sessions Judge on

12.04.2024 and t hat t he applicant does not have any prior crim inal record. 2

6. The St at e opposes t he bail applicat ion and relies on st at em ent s of t hree wit nesses—Manish Kum ar, Sum it Singh, and Mohan Singh—recorded under Sect ion 161 Cr.P.C., who allegedly saw t he applicant and t he deceased arguing on t he night of t he incident . The St at e furt her relies on t he post- m ort em report which at t ribut es t he cause of deat h t o subdural hem at om a leading t o com a, consist ent wit h assault by a blunt obj ect such as a st ick.

7. On considerat ion of t he m at erials placed on record, is evident t hat t he prosecut ion case prim arily based on circum st ant ial evidence. There is no direct eyewit ness account of t he alleged assault . The recovery of t he alleged weapon ( st ick) and t he shoes of t he deceased is not accom panied by a disclosure m em o forensic exam inat ion linking t he art icles t o t he crim e. The evident iary value of t he recovery, t herefore, is prim a facie weak at t his st age.

8. The applicant has been in cust ody since

07.02.2024. The charge sheet has already been filed on 05.05.2024 and no furt her cust odial int errogat ion is required. The t rial is yet t o begin and is likely t o t ake t im e.

9. The co- accused Mohit , t hough charged only under Sect ion 201 I PC, has been grant ed bail. While t he role of t he present applicant m ay appear m ore serious, t he principle of parit y is not irrelevant , especially where t he evidence against bot h accused persons originat es from t he sam e chain of event s. 3

10. The applicant has no crim inal ant ecedent s. He is a perm anent resident of t he dist rict and is st at ed t o have st rong fam ilial and social t ies. The apprehension of flight or influencing wit nesses can be addressed t hrough appropriat e condit ions.

11. The Hon’ble Suprem e Court in Sa t e n d e r K u m a r A n t i l v . CBI , ( 2 0 2 2 ) 1 0 SCC 5 1 , reit erat ed t hat pre- t rial det ent ion should not becom e a form of punishm ent . Sim ilarly, in Arnesh Kum ar v. St at e of Bihar, ( 2014) 8 SCC 273, it was held t hat t he power t o arrest and det ain m ust be exercised caut iously and not as a m at t er of rout ine.

12. I n D a t a r a m Si n g h v . St a t e o f U.P., ( 2 0 1 8 ) 3 SCC 2 2 , it was held t hat t he grant of bail is not t o be denied m erely on t he basis of t he gravit y of t he offence. Libert y is a const it ut ional value and m ust not be denied unless it is shown t hat t he accused is likely t o abscond or t am per wit h t he evidence.

13. I n t he present case, t aking int o account t he nat ure of evidence, t he fact t hat t he invest igat ion is com plet e, t he period of cust ody undergone, absence of crim inal ant ecedent s, and t he set t led principles governing grant of bail, t his Court is of t he opinion t hat t he applicant deserves t o be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, t he Bail Applicat ion is allowed.

14. Let t he applicant–Rohit be released on bail in connect ion wit h FI R No. 34 of 2024, Police St at ion Gadarpur, Dist rict Udham Singh Nagar, under Sect ions 302 and 201 I PC, on furnishing a personal bond and t wo reliable suret ies, each of like am ount , t o t he sat isfact ion of t he court concerned, subj ect t o t he 4 following condit ions: ( i) The applicant shall not t am per wit h t he evidence or influence any prosecut ion wit ness in any m anner. ( ii) The applicant shall appear on all dat es fixed by t he Trial Court and shall cooperat e wit h t he t rial proceedings. ( iii) I n case of breach of any condit ion, t he St at e shall be at libert y t o apply for cancellat ion of bail. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 02.04.2025 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3 a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c , postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C5279 6A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18F E29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA 5