Shahbaz v. State of Uttarakhand

3. The applicant submits that the FIR in question was lodged after a delay of five days from the alleged discovery of the dead bodies, and the applicant has been named solely on the basis of suspicion arising out of an alleged property dispute. It was submitted that there is no eyewitness account implicating the applicant in the commission of the offence, and the prosecution has not produced any direct evidence to establish his involvement.

4. It was further argued that the investigation, at the time of filing the charge sheet, remained incomplete. Crucial forensic evidence, including the viscera and FSL reports of the alleged weapon of offence (a knife) and blood-stained clothes, had not been received. The post-mortem reports merely state that the deaths were unnatural, but due to decomposition of the bodies, the cause of death could not be ascertained. The date and time of death also remain indeterminate.

5. Learned counsel emphasised that the statement of witness Shubham, relied upon by the prosecution, does not advance the case meaningfully. The said witness did not witness the crime, did not enter the room, and did not see the bodies. His statement is speculative and fails to establish any link between the applicant and the act of murder.

6. It was also contended that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in custody since 22.06.2023. There is no material to suggest that he may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if released on bail. The delay in completion of the investigation, combined with the absence of cogent evidence, renders continued incarceration unjustified and violative of the applicant’s fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

7. Learned State counsel submitted that the applicant has been rightly named in the FIR and his involvement has emerged during investigation through multiple the chain of circumstances. The applicant had a clear motive to commit the offence, arising out of a property dispute with the deceased Anam Naz, who was his sister and had inherited land from their father. The applicant had allegedly been pressuring her to transfer the said property in his name, and the refusal of the deceased became the cause of enmity.

8. Learned State counsel relied upon the statement of one Shubham, who accompanied the applicant to Dehradun shortly before the incident. Shubham’s statement under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS discloses that the applicant brought him to a location where the applicant himself claimed that the bodies were lying inside a room. Though Shubham did not enter the room, his testimony, it was argued, lends circumstantial support to the prosecution’s theory that the applicant had knowledge of and connection to the incident.

9. It was also submitted that a recovery of a knife was made at the instance of the applicant, and that this knife, along with blood- stained clothes, has been sent for forensic analysis. Though the FSL and viscera reports are awaited, the State maintains that the delay in receiving them does not weaken the otherwise complete chain of circumstantial evidence gathered so far.

10. Reliance was placed on the post-mortem and inquest reports, which indicate that the deaths were unnatural and inflicted by violent means. The State contended that the delay in lodging the FIR is reasonably explained by the discovery of the crime scene and the initial shock suffered by the complainant.

11. Heard learned counsel of the parties and pursued the records.

12. The court takes note of the fact that the viscera and FSL reports of the seized material, including the knife allegedly recovered at the instance of the applicant and blood-stained clothes, have not yet been submitted. The inordinate delay in procuring these forensic reports casts a shadow on completeness and reliability of the investigation.

13. The entire case of the State hinges on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, the State must establish an uninterrupted chain of circumstances that leads unerringly to the conclusion of guilt. In the present case, the chain appears incomplete and riddled with gaps. For instance, the precise date of death is uncertain.

14. The charge sheet conspicuously lacks a definitive time of death or forensic confirmation regarding the nature of the injuries, save for the post-mortem reports, which only mention that the deaths were unnatural, and the cause of death cannot be determined due to decomposition of the bodies. These observations, without the aid of forensic corroboration, fall short of creating a complete evidentiary framework.

15. Moreover, the statement of Shubham, relied upon by the State as a crucial link, does not conclusively implicate the applicant in the actual act of homicide. The said witness mentions having accompanied the applicant on a visit to Dehradun, where the applicant allegedly showed him the location where “dead bodies were lying” and requested assistance in disposing of them. Not only is this statement devoid of direct observation of the act of murder, but the witness’s categorical assertion significantly dilutes the fact that he neither entered the room nor saw the bodies.

16. Importantly, there are no CCTV recordings, call detail records, or other forms of electronic surveillance linking the applicant to the crime scene. Furthermore, statements under Section 164 CrPC, relied upon by the State, are not from eyewitnesses but from family members or individuals aware of the alleged land dispute, thus rendering them, at this stage, mere hearsay.

17. It is also relevant to note that the knife allegedly recovered at the instance of the applicant has yet to be matched with the cause of death of the victims through FSL analysis. In the absence of such forensic verification, the evidentiary value of the recovery remains speculative.

18. This Court is not oblivious to the heinous nature of the offence and the loss of two innocent lives. However, bail jurisprudence does not rest solely on the gravity of the offence. Still, it must account for the nature of evidence, its sufficiency for sustaining conviction, and the constitutional guarantee under Article 21. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that circumstantial evidence must be so cogent and compelling that it excludes every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The present case, at this stage, fails to meet that standard.

19. In view of the foregoing, considering the prolonged incarceration of the applicant, the pending nature of key forensic evidence, the absence of direct evidence, and the incomplete chain of circumstantial proof, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. ORDER

20. The present bail application is, accordingly, allowed. Let the applicant-Shahbaz, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness in any manner. (ii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on all dates fixed and shall cooperate with the trial; (iii) In case of any breach of these conditions, it is made clear that the State shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail.

01.04.2025 (Ashish Naithani, J.) NR NITESH RAWAT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc3988ad93d563d95c70eb77fa0ea4758e401cf436 bdce9fb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=F691686B3C447434E89897BCDC0B6567DCE4B7108B324FFED3 C8A159F3BDD03C, cn=NITESH RAWAT