Shahraaz v. St at e of Ut t arakhand

first inform ed t he fam ily of t he deceased t hat he had m et bot h t he applicant and t he deceased t oget her on t he sam e day, and yet , no explanat ion has been offered by t he invest igat ing agency for not exam ining his role m ore closely.

5. I t is also subm it t ed t hat t he applicant received “ What sApp” m essages t he m obile num ber of t he deceased even aft er t he purport ed dat e of t he incident , i.e., 13.05.2024. The exist ence of such m essages creat es a serious doubt as t o t he t im e and sequence of event s and, at t he very least , raises quest ions t hat require t horough scrut iny at t he st age of t rial.

6. The applicant furt her assert s t hat he has no crim inal ant ecedent s and has cooperat ed t hroughout t he invest igat ion. 2

7. On t he ot her hand, learned A.G.A. for t he St at e as well as learned counsel for t he inform ant has opposed t he bail applicat ion. I t is subm it t ed t hat t he deceased and t he applicant were engaged t o be m arried, and t he applicant developed anim osit y on learning t hat t he deceased was in t ouch wit h ot her young m en.

8. I t is cont ended t hat t his served as t he m ot ive for t he com m ission of t he offence.

9. The St at e places reliance on t he st at em ent s of wit nesses, including Mohrram Ali ( report er) , Const able Deepak Mam gain, and Const able Rahul Kum ar, recorded under Sect ion 164 CrPC, t o subst ant iat e t he t heory of last- seen t oget her and t he recovery of t he debris of t he deceased's m obile phone on t he basis of t he applicant 's point ing out .

10. The report from “ Reliance Com m unicat ions” confirm ing t he I MEI num ber m at ching t he deceased's handset is also relied upon.

11. The learned Governm ent Advocat e furt her cont ended t hat alt hough t he cause of deat h could not be ascert ained in t he post- m ort em report due t o t he advanced decom posit ion of t he body — which was found about a m ont h aft er t he vict im went m issing — it st ill im plicat es t he applicant as being responsible for her deat h.

12. Having heard learned counsel for t he part ies and on careful perusal of t he record, it is evident t hat t he prosecut ion's is prim arily based on circum st ant ial evidence. The m obile phone locat ion dat a, as collect ed during t he invest igat ion, indicat es 3 t hat t he devices belonging t o t he deceased, t he applicant , and Asif were present at or near t he scene of t he incident .

13. The case, however, proceeds t o im plicat e t he applicant alone. Whet her t he prosecut ion’s reliance on t he locat ion dat a select ively is j ust ified, and whet her t he role of Asif, part icularly as t he person who first inform ed t he fam ily about having m et t he deceased and t he applicant , has been adequat ely invest igat ed, are m at t ers which fall wit hin t he exclusive dom ain of t he t rial court and m ust be adj udicat ed upon aft er full appreciat ion of evidence.

14. I n addit ion t o t he above t his Court also t akes not e of t he following: “ 1. Unascert ained Cause of Deat h: I t is pert inent t o not e t hat t he body of t he deceased was recovered in a highly decom posed st at e, nearly a m ont h aft er t he vict im was report ed m issing. The m edical officer who conduct ed t he post- m ort em was unable t o det erm ine t he cause of deat h or ident ify any specific ext ernal or int ernal inj uries on account of t he advanced decom posit ion. I n t he absence of conclusive m edical evidence linking t he deat h t o any violent act , t he prosecut ion’s case rem ains speculat ive at t his st age.”

2. Circum st ant ial Nat ure of t he Evidence: The ent ire case hinges upon circum st ant ial evidence. Neit her t he sequence of event s nor t he cause of deat h is clearly est ablished t hrough direct or scient ific evidence. The select ive inference drawn from m obile locat ion dat a does not , by it self, 4 com plet e t he chain of circum st ances t o prim a facie point t o t he applicant ’s guilt .

3. Lack of Forensic or Recovery Evidence Corroborat ing Hom icide: There is no recovery of any weapon, or forensic m at erial, t o suggest hom icidal violence. The debris of t he deceased’s m obile phone recovered on t he applicant ’s alleged point ing out is of lim it ed probat ive value in t he absence of independent corroborat ion or forensic m at ching of fingerprint s or DNA.

4. Role of Anot her Suspect Unexplored: I t also appears from t he record t hat t he role of Asif, who is st at ed t o be t he last person t o have seen t he applicant and deceased t oget her and who also first inform ed t he fam ily, has not been adequat ely exam ined. The select ive focus of invest igat ion raises quest ions of parit y which require closer scrut iny at t rial.

5. What sApp Messages Post- Dat e of Alleged Offence: The applicant ’s claim regarding t he receipt of What sApp m essages t he deceased’s num ber even aft er t he alleged dat e of t he incident furt her cast s doubt on t he exact t im eline and requires deeper invest igat ion.

6. No Crim inal Ant ecedent s and Com plet ed I nvest igat ion: The applicant has no crim inal ant ecedent s and has rem ained in cust ody since

17.05.2024. The charge sheet has already been filed, and furt her cust odial int errogat ion is not warrant ed.”

15. Hence, wit hout going int o furt her det ails, and 5 t aking int o considerat ion t he unascert ained cause of deat h owing t o t he advanced st at e of decom posit ion; t he wholly circum st ant ial nat ure of t he prosecut ion’s case; t he absence of forensic evidence suggest ive of hom icidal violence; t he unexplored role of anot her individual last seen wit h t he deceased; t he applicant ’s assert ion of having received What sApp m essages from t he deceased’s num ber aft er t he alleged dat e of t he incident ; and t he fact t hat t he applicant has no prior crim inal ant ecedent s and t he charge sheet has already been filed—t his Court is of t he view t hat t he applicant is ent it led t o be released on bail.

17. Accordingly, t he bail applicat ion is allowed. Let t he applicant—Shahraaz, be released on bail, on furnishing a personal bond and t wo suret ies each in t he like am ount t o t he sat isfact ion of t he court concerned, subj ect t o t he following condit ions: ( i) The applicant shall not t am per wit h t he evidence influence wit ness; ( ii) The applicant shall appear before t he t rial court on each and every dat e fixed unless exem pt ed t he concerned; ( iii) I n case of breach of any of t he above condit ions, t he prosecut ion shall be at libert y t o m ove for cancellat ion of bail. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 27.03.2025 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c2 4b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A54 2D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5D D9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA 6