St at e of Ut t arakhand v. Wit h

Counsel for t he Applicant : Mr. Vikas Kum ar Guglani, learned counsel. Counsel for t he St at e : Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, A.G.A. H o n ’ b l e A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J. The present applicat ions under Sect ion 483 of t he Bharat iya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhit a, 2023, have filed by Anj ali Sharm a and Shivam Saxena, seeking regular bail in Case Crim e No. 291 of 2024, regist ered at Police St at ion Kichha, Dist rict Udham Singh Nagar, for offences under Sect ions 302, 394, 411, and 34 of t he I ndian Penal Code. Bot h Applicant s have been in j udicial cust ody since 02.07.2024.

2. The FI R was lodged on 02.07.2024 by t he 1 son of t he deceased. He alleged t hat while he was in Jaipur and his fat her was away in Noida, his m ot her died under suspicious circum st ances at t heir hom e in Kichha on 29.06.2024. Following her crem at ion, t he fam ily not iced t he disappearance of j ewellery. Upon reviewing nearby CCTV foot age, t he com plainant claim s t o have ident ified Anj ali Sharm a — a fam ily acquaint ance — and an unident ified individual lat er alleged t o be Shivam Saxena, loit ering near t he house around t he t im e of t he incident .

3. Based on t he foot age and subsequent invest igat ion, t he Applicant s were arrest ed, and charges were fram ed under Sect ions 302, 394, 411, and 34 I PC. The cause of deat h, as per post- m ort em , was asphyxia due t o sm ot hering. Cert ain ornam ent s and a household obj ect , allegedly used in t he offence, were recovered on disclosure by t he Applicant s.

4. Heard learned counsel for t he part ies and perused t he records.

5. Learned counsel for t he Applicant s subm it s t hat t he FI R was lodged aft er an unexplained delay of m ore t han t hree days, which, in cases of hom icide, cast s serious doubt on it s spont aneit y and raises concerns of aft ert hought or m anipulat ion.

6. I t is cont ended t hat t he ent ire case is based on circum st ant ial evidence. The CCTV foot age only shows t he Applicant s in t he general vicinit y and not ent ering t he house or engaging in any incrim inat ing act . There is no eyewit ness, no direct at t ribut ion, and no forensic link t ying t he Applicant s t o t he act of m urder. 2

7. As for t he recoveries, it is argued t hat t he j ewellery allegedly seized is described generically, wit h no hallm ark cert ificat ion, purchase invoices, or sworn ident ificat ion fam ily m em bers t o est ablish ownership or linkage t o t he deceased. The alleged m urder weapon a household obj ect has neit her been ident ified by any independent wit ness nor been forensically m at ched wit h any inj ury m ark or sm ot hering m echanism .

8. I t is also subm it t ed t hat t he Applicant s have no crim inal ant ecedent s, have cooperat ed during invest igat ion, and t hat t heir cust odial presence is not required furt her, especially as t he charge sheet st ands filed and t rial is yet t o begin.

9. Learned A.G.A. opposes t he bail, subm it t ing t hat bot h Applicant s are clearly nam ed in t he FI R, were seen near t he house short ly before t he incident , and have failed t o provide any credible explanat ion for t heir presence.

10. I t is assert ed t hat t he post- m ort em report confirm s deat h due t o sm ot hering, ruling out nat ural causes. The presence of t he Applicant s, followed by t he deat h and disappearance of valuables, est ablishes a st rong circum st ant ial chain. Recoveries of ornam ent s and t he alleged weapon, m ade on disclosure by t he applicant s furt her point t o t heir com plicit y.

11. The St at e also cit es t he financial m ot ive, part icularly in t he case of Anj ali Sharm a, who was allegedly indebt ed due t o house const ruct ion. I t is subm it t ed t hat cust odial bail at t his st age would j eopardize t he int egrit y of t he t rial, which involves a 3 crim e com m it t ed inside a privat e hom e and likely in furt herance of pre- planned conspiracy.

12. This Court not es t hat t he present case is ent irely circum st ant ial, wit h no eyewit ness account , no direct forensic linkage, and no scient ific exam inat ion est ablishing t hat t he recovered art icle could cause sm ot hering. I n Sh a r a d Bi r d h i ch a n d Sa r d a v . St a t e o f M a h a r a sh t r a , ( 1 9 8 4 ) 4 SCC 1 1 6 , t he Hon’ble Suprem e Court m andat ed t hat t he circum st ances in a m urder case m ust be com plet e and should unerringly point t o t he guilt of t he accused, excluding every ot her hypot hesis.

13. The CCTV foot age only shows t he Applicant s near t he residence. Their m ere presence in proxim it y, absent conduct or ent ry, is insufficient t o com plet e t he chain unless support ed by addit ional links. The Court also not es t hat t he St at e has not produced m at erial t o est ablish prior fam iliarit y or cont act bet ween t he Applicant s short ly before t he occurrence or proof of last- seen circum st ance.

14. The alleged recovery of j ewellery rem ains problem at ic. The absence of a proper invent ory, ident ificat ion m em o, or corroborat ion by fam ily m em bers weakens it s evident iary value. The law under N a v a n e e t h a k r i sh n a n v . St a t e , ( 2 0 1 8 ) 1 6 SCC 1 6 1 , reit erat es t hat recovery, t o be credible, m ust be subst ant iat ed by lawful seizure, ownership proof, and forensic consist ency.

15. The alleged m urder weapon is an ordinary household it em - a doorm at . No m edical expert has opined t hat it was used in t he offence. Furt her, t he 4 disclosures m ade by t he Applicant s under Sect ion 180 of t he BNSS ( akin t o Sect ion 27 of t he Evidence Act ) do not const it ut e subst ant ive evidence unless corroborat ed by recovery of incrim inat ing m at erial linked t o t he crim e. I n t he absence of forensic aut hent icat ion, t he Court finds no m at erial linking t he weapon t o t he asphyxia deat h.

16. The charge sheet has been subm it t ed. The Applicant s have no crim inal hist ory, and t here is no possibilit y of absconding, t am pering, or t hreat . The t rial is yet t o com m ence. Given t he above, and bearing in m ind t he principles laid down in Sanj ay Chandra v. CBI , ( 2012) 1 SCC 40, and Dat aram Singh v. St at e of U.P., ( 2018) 3 SCC 22, t his Court finds t hat cont inued incarcerat ion at t his st age is not warrant ed. ORD ER Let t he Applicant s, Anj ali Sharm a and Shivam Saxena, be released on t heir furnishing personal bonds wit h t wo suret ies each of t he like am ount t o t he sat isfact ion of t he court concerned. The Applicant s shall not t am per wit h t he evidence, shall not at t em pt t o influence any wit ness, and shall appear before t he t rial court on each dat e fixed. I n case of breach of any of t hese condit ions, t he St at e shall be at libert y t o m ove for cancellat ion of bail. The bail applicat ion is allowed. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 16.04.2025 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08 b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A 9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA 5