Sankesh Rana alias Sanket Rana v. State of Uttarakhand

2. As per the First Information Report, the brother of the informant had been missing since 13.02.2022. Despite earnest efforts, he could not be traced, whereupon a missing report was lodged on 17.02.2022 at Police Station Khatima. Subsequently, on 19.02.2022 at about 8:30 a.m., a freshly dug pit was noticed near the sewer adjoining the land of one Sugreev Singh, from which the dead body of the informant’s brother was recovered.

3. It is alleged that the deceased’s wife, Smt. Rajnandani, was having an illicit relationship with the present Applicant, who resided in the same village. The First Information Report further recites that on 02.02.2022, 2nd Bail Application No. 250 of 2024, Sankesh Rana @ Sanket ranaVsState of Uttarakhand- 1 Ashish Naithani J. the deceased had a quarrel with the Applicant over the said relationship, during which the Applicant allegedly threatened him with dire consequences. On the basis of this alleged motive, it was asserted that the Applicant, in connivance with Smt. Rajnandani, murdered the deceased and buried his body in the pit so as to conceal the crime.

4. The Applicant was arrested on 21.02.2022 and has remained in judicial custody since then. His first bail application, being Bail Application No. 1857 of 2022, was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.12.2023. The present application is his second request for bail before this Court.

5. The charge sheet was submitted under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where the trial is presently pending. As per the record, ten prosecution witnesses have been examined before the learned trial court so far.

6. Learned counsel for the Applicant, Shri M.S. Dhapola, assisted by Shri Nandan Arya, submitted that the entire case of the State rests merely on suspicion and a purported confessional statement, which by itself carries no evidentiary value unless duly corroborated by an independent recovery in terms of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further submitted that there is no eyewitness account or direct evidence linking the Applicant to the alleged homicidal act.

7. Learned Counsel for the Applicant argued that the First Information Report was lodged only after recovery of the dead body on 19.02.2022, whereas the missing report dated 17.02.2022 contained no suspicion or 2nd Bail Application No. 250 of 2024, Sankesh Rana @ Sanket ranaVsState of Uttarakhand- 2 Ashish Naithani J. allegation against the Applicant. It was thus contended that the implication of the Applicant was an afterthought, developed subsequently to lend colour to the incident.

8. It was contended that the alleged recoveries, including the deceased’s clothes and the sweater said to have been worn by the Applicant, are neither supported by independent witnesses nor verified through any forensic analysis. The State has not produced any FSL report establishing linkage between the recovered articles and the deceased or the Applicant.

9. Learned Counsel for the Applicant further pointed out several anomalies in the case set up by the State. It was submitted that the shirt and jacket of the deceased were allegedly removed after the killing, even though, according to the prosecution, the body was buried immediately thereafter. The clothes of the deceased were stated to have been recovered from the rooftop of one Vinod @ Bindu several days later, yet no explanation has been offered as to how they remained unnoticed for nearly six days. It has also not been clarified whether any staircase existed to access the said rooftop, or whether Vinod @ Bindu had noticed those clothes at any earlier point in time.

10. It was further urged by the learned Counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant was arrested from his own residence and had not absconded at any stage. His conduct, therefore, is inconsistent with that of a guilty person. The Applicant, aged about 21 years, has no previous criminal antecedents and has remained in custody since February 2022. It was argued that his continued incarceration serves no useful purpose, 2nd Bail Application No. 250 of 2024, Sankesh Rana @ Sanket ranaVsState of Uttarakhand- 3 Ashish Naithani J. particularly as most of the material witnesses have already been examined.

11. Learned Counsel for the Applicant lastly submitted that the State has failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances leading unerringly to the guilt of the Applicant. It was contended that the case rests on conjectures and surmises rather than credible evidence. In the given circumstances, coupled with the prolonged period of custody and there being no likelihood of the Applicant tampering with the remaining witnesses, it was urged that he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

12. Per contra, learned A.G.A., Shri Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations against the Applicant are of a grave nature, involving the commission of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, followed by concealment of evidence under Section 201 thereof. It was contended that the material collected during investigation, including the call detail records, recovery of incriminating articles, and statements of witnesses, clearly point towards the active involvement of the Applicant in the offence.

13. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that the motive for the crime stands established, as the Applicant was allegedly involved in an illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased, which had led to frequent quarrels between them. It was pointed out that the deceased had confronted the Applicant regarding this relationship shortly before the incident, whereupon the Applicant had threatened him with dire 2nd Bail Application No. 250 of 2024, Sankesh Rana @ Sanket ranaVsState of Uttarakhand- 4 Ashish Naithani J. consequences. This prior enmity, coupled with the subsequent recovery of the body buried in a pit, is said to constitute a coherent chain of circumstances indicative of the Applicant’s complicity in the offence.

14. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the investigation has been conducted fairly and that the material so far collected substantiates the case set up by the State. It was further contended that releasing the Applicant at this stage, when the charge is one of murder punishable with death or imprisonment for life, may prejudice the fair conduct of the trial and lead to the possibility of influencing the remaining witnesses. On these grounds, it was prayed that the bail application be rejected.

15. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant, Shri M.S. Dhapola, assisted by Shri Nandan Arya, and learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, and have perused the record.

16. The case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, and there is no eyewitness account of the alleged occurrence. Learned Counsel for the State seeks to establish the guilt of the Applicant on the basis of motive, the alleged extra-marital relationship between the Applicant and the wife of the deceased, recovery of certain articles at the Applicant’s instance, and call detail records purportedly indicating contact between the Applicant and the co-accused around the time of the incident.

17. The missing person report dated 17.02.2022 did not name or suspect the Applicant. The First Information Report was lodged only after the recovery of the dead body on 19.02.2022, which suggests that 2nd Bail Application No. 250 of 2024, Sankesh Rana @ Sanket ranaVsState of Uttarakhand- 5 Ashish Naithani J. the Applicant’s implication was a subsequent development. The State’s case that the clothes of the deceased were discovered several days later from the rooftop of one Vinod @ Bindu, as already noted by this Court in earlier hearings, remains unexplained. There is no independent witness statement indicating how those articles were discovered or how they could have remained unnoticed for nearly six days.

18. The alleged motive, even if assumed to be true, cannot by itself suffice to establish guilt unless it is supported by a complete chain of incriminating circumstances that excludes every hypothesis consistent with innocence. The Court is mindful that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. The discovery of the body, the recovery of clothes, and the call detail records, when considered together, do not, at this stage, constitute an unbroken chain of circumstances leading conclusively to the guilt of the Applicant.

19. The Applicant has been in judicial custody since 21.02.2022. The trial has substantially progressed, and ten prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. The possibility of the Applicant tampering with the remaining witnesses appears remote.

20. The Applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, and there is nothing on record to suggest that he has ever attempted to abscond or obstruct the course of the proceedings.

21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, observed that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive, and that detention pending trial is justified only when it is necessary to prevent the accused from fleeing justice or tampering with 2nd Bail Application No. 250 of 2024, Sankesh Rana @ Sanket ranaVsState of Uttarakhand- 6 Ashish Naithani J. evidence. In the present case, the prolonged incarceration of the Applicant, coupled with the fact that most of the prosecution witnesses have already been examined, persuades this Court to extend the benefit of bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the trial. ORDER Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the Applicant-Sankesh Rana alias Sanket Rana, be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. 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.)

20.09.2025 2nd Bail Application No. 250 of 2024, Sankesh Rana @ Sanket ranaVsState of Uttarakhand- 7 Ashish Naithani J.