St at e of Ut t arakhand v. Counsel for t he

: Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Brief Holder. Counsel for t he I nform ant : Ms. Unnat i Pant , Advocat e. H o n ’ b l e A l o k Ku m a r Ve r m a ,J. Applicant - Shivam alias Judi is in j udicial cust ody for t he offence punishable under Sect ion 103( 1) read wit h Sect ion 3( 5) , Sect ion 61( 2) and Sect ion 238 of t he Bharat iya Nyaya Sanhit a, 2023 in Case Crim e No.575 of 2024, regist ered at Police St at ion Rudrapur, Dist rict Udham Singh Nagar. 2 . According t o t he respondent – St at e, Sum it , aged about 24 years, t he husband of t he inform ant Sm t . Renu, was m issing since 14.11.2024. A report was regist ered on

21.11.2024 under Sect ion 140( 3) of t he Bharat iya Nyaya Sanhit a, 2023 against unknown person. On t he sam e day, i.e.

21.11.2024, an applicat ion was given by one Raj u, t he fat her of Sum it , t o t he police alleging t hat Sum it ’s wife has an illicit relat ionship wit h Ganesh ( co- accused) . On 21.11.2024, t he police arrest ed t hree co- accused Ganesh, Vansh and Deepak Kohli on a secret inform at ion. They confessed before t he police t hat t hey com m it t ed m urder of Sum it along wit h 1 Shivam alias Judi ( applicant ) , Govinda and Renu. On

22.11.2024, t he police recovered t he dead body of Sum it from a pit based on t he inform at ion provided by Ganesh Chandra, Vansh and Deepak Kohli, co- accused. The inquest proceedings and t he post- m ort em exam inat ion of t he dead body were conduct ed on 22.11.2024. According t o t he post- m ort em report , t he cause of deat h was asphyxia due t o ant i- m ort em st rangulat ion. The viscera was preserved. 3 . The applicant - Shivam alias Judi was arrest ed on

23.11.2024. He t old t he police t hat Ganesh Chandra, t he co- accused, and Sum it ’s wife were in love relat ionship. Sum it had knowledge of t his fact . Therefore, he used t o beat her. He furt her t old t he police t hat Sum it was called in t he night of

14.11.2024. He was given liquor. He got drunk, t hen Ganesh Chandra hit him on his head w it h a beer bot t le. Govinda ( co- accused) and Deepak st rangled him and he ( applicant ) held his leg. Sum it was m urdered. His dead body was t hrow n int o a river. He along wit h Ganesh Chandra, Vansh, Govinda and Deepak had t aken t he dead body out of t he river in t he night of 16.11.2024 and buried t he dead body in a pit . He furt her t old t he police t hat t wo shovels were used t o bury t he dead body. He had hidden a shovel in t he bushes and Govinda ( co- accused) t ook one shovel wit h him . The police recovered a shovel at t he behest of t he applicant . 4 . Heard Mr. Vik as Anand, learned counsel for t he applicant , Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned Brief Holder for t he respondent and Ms. Unnat i Pant , learned counsel for t he 2 inform ant- fat her. 5 . Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocat e, has cont ended t hat t he applicant has been falsely im plicat ed by t he co- accused Ganesh, Vansh and Deepak Kohli. Applicant was not involved in t he said offences. He has been im plicat ed in t he alleged offence on t he basis of his confessional st at em ent and t he confessional st at em ent s of t he co- accused persons. The confessional st at em ent s before t he police are not adm issible in evidence as per t he prov isions of Sect ion 23( 1) of t he Bharat iya Sakshya Adhiniyam , 2023. The alleged shovel was not recovered at t he behest of t he applicant . The alleged recovery was plant ed. There was no independent wit ness at t he t im e of t he alleged recovery of shovel from t he possession of t he applicant . This fact also m akes t he st ory of t he police doubt ful. The alleged recovered shovel was not sent t o t he Forensic Science Laborat ory for exam inat ion. The applicant has no crim inal ant ecedent s. He is in j udicial cust ody since

22.11.2024. He is a perm anent resident of Dist rict Bareilly ( Ut t ar Pradesh) , t herefore, t here is no possibilit y of his absconding, and, charge- sheet has already been filed, t herefore, t here is no chance of t am pering wit h t he evidence. 6 . Learned counsel for t he St at e and learned counsel for t he inform ant has opposed t he bail applicat ion. They have opposed t he bail applicat ion m ainly on t he ground t hat t he applicant has confessed his crim e before t he police and a shovel was recovered at his inst ance. 3 7 . Bail t he rule and com m it t al t o j ail is an except ion. Refusal of bail is a rest rict ion on t he personal libert y of t he individual, guarant eed under Art icle 21 of t he Const it ut ion of I ndia. The obj ect of keeping t he accused in det ent ion during t he t rial is not punishm ent . The m ain purpose is m anifest ly t o secure t he at t endance of t he accused. 8 . Having considered t he subm issions of learned counsel for bot h t he part ies and t he fact s and circum st ances of t he case, no reason is found t o keep t he applicant behind t he bars for an indefinit e period, t herefore, wit hout expressing any opinion as t o t he m erit s of t he case, t his Court is of t he view t hat t he applicant deserves bail at t his st age. 9 . 1 0 . The Bail Applicat ion is allowed. Let t he applicant - Shivam alias Judi be released on bail on his execut ing a personal bond and furnishing t wo reliable suret ies, each in t he like am ount , t o t he sat isfact ion of t he court concerned. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A LOK K UM A R VERM A , J. Dt : 29.12.2025 Pant / 4