Munesh Yadav Mukesh Yadav v. State of Uttarakhand

Judgment

1. The present matter arises on the second bail application preferred by the Applicant, Munesh Yadav @ Mukesh Yadav, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking his enlargement on bail in connection with FIR No. 217 of 2024 registered under Sections 302, 201, and 120B IPC at Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar. His first bail application was rejected by this Court on 19.02.2025.

2. The allegations against the Applicant are that, in conspiracy with family members, he staged his own death by planting his Aadhaar card and belongings on an unidentified dead body, which was thereafter falsely identified as his own.

3. It is further alleged that to effectuate this design, the Applicant was complicit in the murder of one Maninder Singh, whose body was allegedly passed off as that of the Applicant. The conspiracy is said to have been devised to evade pending criminal cases, financial liabilities, and insurance obligations. 2nd Bail Application No. 199 of 2025, Munesh Yadav @ Mukesh YadavVs State of Uttarakhand- 1 Ashish Naithani J.

The Applicant was arrested in 2022 in connection with FIR No. 660 of 2022, P.S. Roja, District Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh, relating to allegations of impersonation and forgery. Subsequently, on the basis of investigation and statements recorded, FIR No. 217 of 2024 was lodged, implicating him for offences including murder and conspiracy. He has remained in custody since 2024.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant has advanced elaborate submissions in support of the prayer for bail. It is urged that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The gravamen of the argument is that the prosecution case rests on conjectures and surmises, without any concrete evidence establishing unidentified body discovered in July 2015 was that of Maninder Singh, alleged to have been murdered by the Applicant. Counsel stresses that no DNA report or forensic opinion has been placed on record to establish the identity of the deceased. Even the family members of the alleged deceased never identified the body, and such omission renders the foundation of the prosecution story inherently weak.

6. It is further argued that there is an inordinate delay of almost nine years in lodging FIR No. 217 of 2024. According to the Applicant, such unexplained delay creates serious doubt as to the bona fides of the prosecution case. The complainant and other alleged witnesses did not lodge any missing persons report in 2015 when Maninder Singh allegedly went missing, which is highly improbable if indeed a close relative had disappeared. Learned counsel submits that this belated attempt to implicate the Applicant after nearly a decade points to an afterthought, possibly motivated by extraneous considerations. 2nd Bail Application No. 199 of 2025, Munesh Yadav @ Mukesh YadavVs State of Uttarakhand- 2 Ashish Naithani J.

7. Learned counsel for the Applicant has contended that during trial, material witnesses, namely Chandrapal Singh and Vineet Singh Rana, have been examined and both have turned hostile by denying the prosecution version in its entirety. It is submitted that this development shows the case is not supported even by the witnesses cited by the State, and that the foundation of the prosecution’s case is collapsing. Reliance is placed on these subsequent developments as additional grounds not available at the time of the first bail application.

8. It is next urged that several co-accused, namely Rajesh @ Pappu, Bheekam Singh, and Dharampal Yadav, have already been enlarged on bail by the courts below. According to the submission, the principle of parity squarely applies, and the Applicant cannot be singled out merely on the allegation of being a conspirator when there is no direct evidence establishing his involvement.

9. It is further argued that the acts attributed to the Applicant are not materially distinct from those attributed to the co-accused, and that denial of bail to him alone would amount to discrimination. Additionally, it is urged that the Applicant has been in custody since his arrest in 2024, and the trial is likely to take considerable time. Continued incarceration, it is submitted, would amount to pre-trial punishment, contrary to the principles of personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

10. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate for the State has opposed the bail application with vehemence. It is submitted that the allegations against the Applicant are not only serious but also distinct levelled against the co-accused. According prosecution, the Applicant is the principal conspirator, and the entire 2nd Bail Application No. 199 of 2025, Munesh Yadav @ Mukesh YadavVs State of Uttarakhand- 3 Ashish Naithani J. design of staging his own death and using the body of Maninder Singh emanated from him.

11. It is further pointed out on behalf of the State that material collected during the investigation, including statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, indicates that Maninder Singh was last seen in the company of the Applicant and has remained missing ever since.

12. The submission on behalf of the State is that the plea of parity advanced by the Applicant is misconceived. The co-accused who have been enlarged on bail were assigned a limited role, such as identification of the dead body or procurement of documents, whereas the Applicant is alleged to have masterminded the entire conspiracy. Given the gravity of the allegations, the seriousness of the charge under Section 302 IPC, and the potential sentence of life imprisonment or death penalty, it is urged that the Applicant is not entitled to the concession of bail.

13. It is also contended for the State that the Applicant has a past history of impersonation and fraudulent conduct, as evident from FIR No. 660 of 2022, P.S. Roja, District Shahjahanpur, wherein he was accused of forging documents and passing himself off under a false identity. Such antecedents, according to the State, demonstrate a real and substantial risk that he may abscond or evade trial if released on bail. The apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses is said to be neither illusory nor unfounded, particularly as material witnesses are yet to be examined in the ongoing trial.

14. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records. 2nd Bail Application No. 199 of 2025, Munesh Yadav @ Mukesh YadavVs State of Uttarakhand- 4 Ashish Naithani J.

15. The contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that there is an unexplained delay of nearly nine years in lodging the FIR has been duly considered. Ordinarily, such delay may cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. However, in the present matter, the nature of the allegations is of a continuing conspiracy, unearthed only upon subsequent investigation into antecedent events. Thus, while unusual, the delay by itself does not efface the substratum of the allegations.

16. The contention advanced on behalf of the Applicant that two prosecution witnesses have turned hostile during trial has been considered. While this is a relevant circumstance, it is equally well settled that at the stage of bail, the Court does not undertake a mini- trial. The hostility of some witnesses does not ipso facto demolish the prosecution case, particularly when other incriminating circumstances such as last-seen evidence, documentary materials, and surrounding facts remain on record to be tested during trial.

17. A principal contention advanced on behalf of the Applicant is that he is entitled to bail on the ground of parity, as certain co-accused, namely Rajesh @ Pappu, Bheekam Singh, and Dharampal Yadav, have already been enlarged on bail. This submission, however, does not commend acceptance. Parity is not a rigid formula; the co-accused were found to have limited roles, whereas the Applicant is alleged to be the principal conspirator who conceived and executed the plan. The distinction in roles disentitles the Applicant from claiming parityThis Court also notes the antecedents of the Applicant. In FIR No. 660 of 2022, registered at P.S. Roja, District Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh, he was accused of forging documents and assuming a false identity. Such past conduct, viewed in light of the present allegations, strengthens the 2nd Bail Application No. 199 of 2025, Munesh Yadav @ Mukesh YadavVs State of Uttarakhand- 5 Ashish Naithani J. apprehension that if enlarged on bail, the Applicant may abscond or subvert the course of justice.

18. In its earlier order dated 19.02.2025, this Court had already considered the merits of the Applicant’s case and declined to enlarge him on bail, inter alia, on the ground that his role was distinct and central to the conspiracy. The grounds now urged, hostile witnesses and delay, do not materially alter the circumstances so as to warrant a different conclusion. The gravity of the offence, punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, the seriousness of the alleged conspiracy, and the potential to tamper with evidence and influence witnesses remain potent considerations militating against the grant of bail.

19. Thus, upon a cumulative assessment of the material, this Court finds that no fresh or compelling ground has been established to depart from the earlier rejection of bail. The allegations are grave, the role attributed to the Applicant is central, and the risk of flight and interference with the trial is both real and substantial. ORDER For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds no merit in the present second bail application filed by the Applicant, Munesh Yadav @ Mukesh Yadav. Accordingly, the application, moved in connection with FIR No. 217 of 2024 under Sections 302, 201, and 120B IPC, Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, is rejected. For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any merit in the second bail application filed by the Applicant, Munesh Yadav @ Mukesh Yadav. 2nd Bail Application No. 199 of 2025, Munesh Yadav @ Mukesh YadavVs State of Uttarakhand- 6 Ashish Naithani J. Accordingly, the present second bail application, moved in connection with FIR No. 217 of 2024 under Sections 302, 201, and 120B IPC, Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, is rejected. Arti ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH (Ashish Naithani J.) 12.08.2025 2nd Bail Application No. 199 of 2025, Munesh Yadav @ Mukesh YadavVs State of Uttarakhand- 7 Ashish Naithani J.