(Under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita) Mohd. Ashraf @ Bhura v. State of Uttarakhand

her residence with serious head injuries. The FIR was lodged the following day on 04.11.2022. According to the FIR, gold ornaments and cash amounting to ₹3,000 were found to be missing from the house. The Applicant was arrested on 07.11.2022 based on information from an informant and the analysis of CCTV footage.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Vipul Sharma, submitted that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is argued that there is FIRST BAIL APPLICATION No. 2025 OF 2024-----Mohd. Ashraf @ Bhura vs State of Uttarakhand 1 Ashish Naithani J. no direct evidence against the Applicant, and the entire case of the State is based solely on circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel pointed out that no witness has identified the Applicant as the person who entered the house or committed the crime. The Applicant has no criminal history and has been in custody since November 2022.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that PW-1, a neighbour, saw only a man in a black helmet near the scene but could not identify him. PW-2, another neighbour, allegedly overheard a conversation between the deceased and a male visitor but admitted that she did not see the individual. PW-4, the deceased’s daughter, also failed to identify the Applicant in court. It was submitted that the failure of identification by a family member who allegedly witnessed part of the incident significantly weakens the case. 6. The FIR’s delay was also pointed out. Though the deceased’s body was discovered around 2:30 p.m. on 03.11.2022, the FIR was registered only at 9:40 a.m. on 04.11.2022. The complainant, being a police constable, was expected to act promptly. This delay, coupled with the omission of important facts in the FIR (such as the alleged observations of PW-1 and PW-2), was submitted to indicate embellishment.

7. The alleged recoveries were also contested. It was submitted that the recovery of ornaments from a finance company is of questionable evidentiary value, as the officer from the company was not initially listed as a witness in the charge sheet. The later addition of his statement was alleged to be an afterthought. Learned counsel also pointed out that no DNA or forensic report has been produced to confirm that the blood allegedly found on the recovered hammer or clothing belonged to the deceased.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Girish Chandra Lakhchaura and learned A.G.A. for the State, Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, opposed the bail application, contending that the allegations against the Applicant are FIRST BAIL APPLICATION No. 2025 OF 2024-----Mohd. Ashraf @ Bhura vs State of Uttarakhand 2 Ashish Naithani J. extremely grave, involving the murder of a woman within her home, followed by robbery. They submitted that the investigation was conducted properly and has led to the recovery of jewellery, the alleged murder weapon, and blood-stained clothing purportedly belonging Applicant.

9. The State relied upon the testimony of multiple witnesses, including neighbours and the complainant’s children, who have, according to the State, supported the prosecution's version during the trial.

10. It was further argued that the Applicant was apprehended shortly after the incident and that his custodial statement led to the recovery of crucial items. The post-mortem and FSL reports were also relied upon.

11. It was contended that releasing the Applicant at this stage would pose a real threat to the integrity of the trial, particularly as some key witnesses are yet to be examined, and there exists a possibility of the Applicant influencing them.

12. At the very threshold, this Court is mindful of the settled legal principle that bail, particularly at the pre-conviction stage, is the norm, and refusal is the exception. This principle flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which enshrines the right to life and personal liberty as a fundamental right. However, such liberty is not unfettered, and its exercise may be restricted pera procedure established by law, especially in cases involving grave and heinous offences such as the one presently before this Court, where the Applicant stands accused of murder in the course of a robbery.

13. In the instant case, the Applicant faces allegations under Sections 302, 394, and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The nature of the offence, which involves the brutal murder of a woman inside the sanctity of her own home, followed by the theft of valuables, undeniably lends the matter a serious and aggravated character. The act is alleged to have been FIRST BAIL APPLICATION No. 2025 OF 2024-----Mohd. Ashraf @ Bhura vs State of Uttarakhand 3 Ashish Naithani J. committed using a blunt object, a hammer, resulting in fatal head injuries. The fact that the victim was alone in her house at the time further compounds the gravity of the alleged incident and invites judicial scrutiny from the standpoint of societal impact and public order.

14. However, the seriousness of the offence, while certainly a relevant consideration, cannot be the sole ground for denial of bail. As reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Court, while dealing with bail applications, must consider the totality of circumstances, including the nature of the evidence, likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, his antecedents, and the possibility of absconding.

15. While the case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI arose in the context of economic offences, the Hon’ble Supreme Court therein laid down enduring principles of bail jurisprudence that apply across categories of offences. These include the presumption of innocence, the importance of assessing the totality of circumstances, and the imperative to avoid prolonged pre-trial incarceration the absence of compelling justification.

16. The Court is not to conduct a mini-trial at this stage but must assess whether the custodial detention of the accused is justified in law and fact. 17. On a prima facie assessment of the evidence as it stands on record, this Court notes the prosecution's case is substantially built on circumstantial evidence. The reliance on CCTV footage, statements of neighbours (PW-1 and PW-2), and recoveries of gold ornaments and the alleged murder weapon forms the core of the case of the State.

18. However, the CCTV footage, as submitted, merely depicts a person wearing a black helmet, and no clear facial identification of the Applicant has been captured. PW-1 has deposed to seeing an individual in a helmet near the deceased's residence, but he has not identified the Applicant. PW- FIRST BAIL APPLICATION No. 2025 OF 2024-----Mohd. Ashraf @ Bhura vs State of Uttarakhand 4 Ashish Naithani J. 2, though having overheard a conversation regarding grill work, admits she did not see the individual in question. PW-4, the daughter of the deceased, has also not identified the Applicant in court. These facts taken together cast doubt upon the strength of the identification and linkage of the Applicant to the alleged offence.

19. The State's reliance on the chain of circumstantial evidence is, therefore, subject to careful judicial scrutiny. The law is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be complete and point unequivocally to the guilt of the accused. At the stage of considering bail, the Court must assess whether such a chain has even prima facie been made out. In the present case, the Court finds that the evidentiary links are not, at this stage, sufficiently conclusive.

20. Further, the Court notes that the FIR, although concerning an incident that allegedly came to light at 2:30 PM on 03.11.2022, was not lodged until 9:40 AM on the following day. The complainant being a police constable, the delay in registration of the FIR and the absence of key factual detailssuch as the observations of PW-1 and PW-2in the complaint raises legitimate concerns about the spontaneity and authenticity of the version presented at the investigation's inception.

21. The recoveries, particularly that of gold ornaments from a finance company, are also under question. The Applicant has drawn the Court's attention to the fact that the individual from whom the recovery is claimed, the manager of the finance company,was not named as a prosecution witness in the charge sheet. However, his statement was subsequently relied upon. This procedural inconsistency gives rise to reasonable doubt as to whether the recovery process was conducted transparently and in compliance with due process.

22. Additionally, this Court finds that there is no conclusive forensic report on record demonstrating that the blood allegedly recovered on the FIRST BAIL APPLICATION No. 2025 OF 2024-----Mohd. Ashraf @ Bhura vs State of Uttarakhand 5 Ashish Naithani J. Applicant’s clothing or on the hammer matches that of the deceased. In a case where the link between the accused and the weapon or the scene of the crime is critical, the absence of corroborative forensic evidence significantly undermines the weight of the recoveries at this stage.

23. As regards the Applicant’s background, it is not disputed that he has no prior criminal record. He has been in custody since 07.11.2022, and trial is still underway with several witnesses yet to be examined. The Court cannot overlook that the Applicant has already been incarcerated for over two and a half years.

24. The State has expressed apprehension that the Applicant may tamper with witnesses if released. However, to be acted upon, such apprehension must be grounded in material placed before the Court. In the present matter, no specific instance or material has been cited to show that the Applicant has attempted to intimidate or influence witnesses during his custody. Courts are disinclined to deny bail merely on speculative or generalised fears, absent any concrete basis. ORDER Therefore, having regard to the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view that continued pre-trial detention of the Applicant, in light of a case based largely on circumstantial evidence, the absence of conclusive forensic linkage, prolonged incarceration, and the lack of any criminal antecedents, is not justified at this stage. The presumption of innocence must prevail until the guilt is established in accordance with law, and bail, being an integral facet of the criminal justice system, ought not to be denied as a measure of punishment. Bail application is allowed. Accordingly, this Court considers that the Applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail, subject to the imposition of FIRST BAIL APPLICATION No. 2025 OF 2024-----Mohd. Ashraf @ Bhura vs State of Uttarakhand 6 Ashish Naithani J. appropriate conditions to secure his presence during trial and ensure that the course of justice remains unimpaired. The bail is, therefore, granted subject to the following conditions: (a) The Applicant shall furnish a personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (b) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any witness or person acquainted with the facts of the case. (c) The Applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission and shall surrender his passport, if any. (d) The Applicant shall attend all trial proceedings regularly and without fail. (e) In the event of any violation of the above conditions, the State shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail. (Ashish Naithani, J) Dated:12.06.2025 NR/ NITESH RAWAT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc3988ad 93d563d95c70eb77fa0ea4758e401cf 436bdce9fb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=F691686B3C447434E 89897BCDC0B6567DCE4B7108B324 FFED3C8A159F3BDD03C, cn=NITESH RAWAT FIRST BAIL APPLICATION No. 2025 OF 2024-----Mohd. Ashraf @ Bhura vs State of Uttarakhand 7 Ashish Naithani J.