Aditya Tomar v. State of Uttarakhand

The FIR was lodged on 03.03.2022 at 20:31 hours by one Rakesh Bansal. It was alleged that at about 5:30 p.m. on the same day, his younger daughter sustained firearm injuries. Upon Second Bail Application No. 314 of 2024, “Aditya Tomar vs. State of Uttarakhand 1 Ashish Naithani J. inquiry, he came to know that the Applicant had fired upon her with a country-made pistol. The injured later succumbed to the injuries.

3. During investigation, the police recorded statements of witnesses including one Divya and one Sakshi Ayyar (shopkeeper), who allegedly stated that the Applicant fled after firing upon the deceased, leaving behind his motorcycle (Super Splendor bearing registration No. UK07BN1359), a country- made pistol of 12 bore with empty cartridges, and a mobile phone, all of which were seized from the spot.

4. The Applicant was arrested on 04.03.2022. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed on

27.05.2022, arraying the Applicant as accused for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution has cited 40 witnesses, out of whom only 8 have been examined so far.

5. It is the second bail application moved on behalf of the Applicant. The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 12.12.2023. The Applicant has remained in custody since 04.03.2022.

6. Learned Counsel for the Applicant, Shri Abhishek Verma, submits that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, and there is no direct eyewitness account linking the Applicant with the commission of Second Bail Application No. 314 of 2024, “Aditya Tomar vs. State of Uttarakhand 2 Ashish Naithani J. the alleged offence. According to learned Counsel, the FIR was lodged on mere suspicion, and subsequent investigation has failed to yield any unimpeachable evidence establishing the involvement of the Applicant.

7. Learned Counsel for the Applicant further argues that although a country-made pistol and motorcycle were shown to have been recovered from the spot, no fingerprint or other forensic evidence of the Applicant was found on the seized articles. The ballistic report does not conclusively establish that the Applicant fired the fatal shot. It is stressed that in the absence of such conclusive forensic linkage, mere recovery of articles from the place of occurrence cannot by itself justify prolonged detention of the Applicant.

8. With respect to the CCTV footage cited by the State, learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that it suffers from a statutory infirmity since no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act has been furnished, rendering the footage inadmissible at this stage. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the settled principle that electronic evidence without compliance with Section 65B is of no evidentiary value.

9. It is also argued that the prosecution has cited as many as 40 witnesses, but in the span of over three years, only 8 witnesses have been examined, which shows the tardy pace of the trial. The Applicant has remained in judicial custody since

04.03.2022, and there is no likelihood of the conclusion of the Second Bail Application No. 314 of 2024, “Aditya Tomar vs. State of Uttarakhand 3 Ashish Naithani J. trial in the near future. It is urged that the Applicant cannot be made to suffer indefinite incarceration, as the right to a speedy trial is a part of Article 21 of the Constitution.

10. Learned Counsel emphasizes that the Applicant is a young student of 21 years of age, pursuing his education, and has no criminal antecedents. It is submitted that prolonged imprisonment at such a formative stage of life will cause irreparable harm and mental agony. The principle of presumption of innocence continues to apply during the trial. Unless the prosecution can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the Applicant should not be deprived of liberty for an unduly long period. It is assured that the Applicant will abide by all conditions imposed by the Court and will not tamper with evidence or influence any witness.

11. Per contra, learned Counsel for the State, Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, opposes the bail application. It is argued that the allegations against the Applicant are of a grave nature, involving an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Learned Counsel submits that the FIR was lodged promptly by the informant soon after the incident, and specific allegations were levelled against the Applicant.

12. Learned State Counsel for the State points out that the Applicant’s motorcycle and the weapon of offence were recovered from the spot itself, immediately after the incident. Witness statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC implicate Second Bail Application No. 314 of 2024, “Aditya Tomar vs. State of Uttarakhand 4 Ashish Naithani J. the Applicant by stating that he was seen fleeing from the spot. The chain of circumstances, according to learned Counsel, prima facie points to the involvement of the Applicant, and therefore, this is not a fit case for the grant of bail.

13. It is lastly submitted that there is a real apprehension that if enlarged on bail, the Applicant may attempt to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, particularly when several material witnesses are yet to be examined. The State Counsel, therefore, prays for rejection of the bail application. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.

14. The State’s case rests on the allegation that the Applicant fired upon the daughter of the informant with a country-made pistol, resulting in her death. The FIR was lodged promptly on 03.03.2022 at 20:31 hours, and the investigation led to the filing of a charge sheet under Sections 302 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act. At the outset, the accusation is of a serious and grave nature, punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

15. At the same time, this Court finds that the State’s case is based essentially on circumstantial evidence. The incriminating material relied upon includes the alleged recovery of the motorcycle and country-made pistol from the spot, certain witness statements, and CCTV footage. However, the ballistic opinion does not conclusively establish that the Applicant fired the fatal shot, nor were any fingerprints of the Applicant Second Bail Application No. 314 of 2024, “Aditya Tomar vs. State of Uttarakhand 5 Ashish Naithani J. recovered from the seized weapon.

16. It further transpires from the record that some of the prosecution witnesses who were projected as material witnesses to the incident, namely Divya and Sakshi Ayyar, have not supported the case of the prosecution in their depositions. Their hostility, despite being cited as direct witnesses to the Applicant’s presence at the scene, considerably weakens the prosecution version and disrupts the chain of circumstances. The evidentiary worth of the remaining witnesses will, of course, be tested during trial, but the failure of such key witnesses to support the case at this stage assumes significance.

17. With regard to the CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution, the Court notes that the requirement of certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act has not been complied with. The admissibility and evidentiary value of such material will have to be determined during trial, but at present, its probative force stands considerably diminished.

18. The prosecution has cited 40 witnesses, but only 8 have been examined in over three years of trial. The Applicant has been in custody since 04.03.2022. The right to a speedy trial is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, as recognised in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81. Prolonged pre-trial incarceration without substantial progress in trial offends this constitutional guarantee. Second Bail Application No. 314 of 2024, “Aditya Tomar vs. State of Uttarakhand 6 Ashish Naithani J.

19. Hence, the Court finds that although the offence alleged is heinous, the evidence so far, particularly the testimony of hostile witnesses and inconclusive forensic material, does not present an unimpeachable case against the Applicant. The Applicant is 21 years of age, a student by occupation, and has no prior criminal history. No material has been placed before this Court to show that, if released on bail, he is likely to abscond or misuse the concession of liberty.

20. The apprehension expressed by the State that the Applicant may influence witnesses can be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions. The balance between individual liberty and societal interest must be maintained, and on the present facts, continued incarceration would be unjustified.

21. In view of the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Applicant has made out a case for being enlarged on bail. ORDER The bail application is allowed. Let the Applicant, Aditya Tomar, be released on bail in Sessions Trial No. 117 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 109 of 2022, under Sections 302 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun, on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.The grant of bail shall be subject to the following conditions: Second Bail Application No. 314 of 2024, “Aditya Tomar vs. State of Uttarakhand 7 Ashish Naithani J. (i) The Applicant shall appear before the trial court on each and every date fixed, unless exempted for reasons. (ii) The Applicant shall not tamper with evidence or attempt to influence any witness. (iii) The Applicant shall not commit any offence while on bail. It is made clear that any violation of the above conditions shall entitle the prosecution to move for cancellation of bail. ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 20.09.2025 NR/ Second Bail Application No. 314 of 2024, “Aditya Tomar vs. State of Uttarakhand 8 Ashish Naithani J.