Munesh Yadav Mukesh Yadav v. State of Uttarakhand
Case Details
learned First Addit ional Dist rict and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, while rej ect ing t he applicant 's bail applicat ion on 11.12.2024, observed t hat t he m at erial on record prim a facie suggest s t hat t he applicant conspired t o st age his deat h and m ay have played a role in t he m urder of Maninder Singh. The lower t hat t he evidence collect ed during t he invest igat ion, including wit ness t est im onies docum ent ary proof, indicat ed t hat t he applicant had com m it t ed a crim e of grave nat ure. I t was also not ed 3 t hat several ot her co- accused in t he case had been grant ed bail, but t he applicant ’s role was dist inct as he was t he m ain conspirat or. The court reasoned t hat t he applicant ’s release on bail could lead t o t he possibilit y of influencing wit nesses and t am pering wit h evidence.
6. Addit ionally, earlier order dat ed
19.10.2024, t he Sessions Court grant ed bail t o co- accused Raj esh alias Pappu and Bhikam Singh, cit ing t he fact t hat t heir role was lim it ed t o ident ifying t he body and obt aining a false deat h cert ificat e. The lower court also not ed t hat t he case against t hem was prim arily based on circum st ant ial evidence and t hat no direct involvem ent in t he alleged m urder had been est ablished. Sim ilarly, on
02.08.2024, co- accused Dharam pal Yadav was grant ed bail on t he grounds t hat his role was not as pivot al as t hat of t he applicant . ORD ER
7. Upon perusal of t he case diary and t he m at erials available on record, it is not ed t hat while co- accused persons have been grant ed bail, t he role of t he applicant is dist inct inasm uch as he is t he m ain accused, and t he allegat ions against him are of a grave nat ure. The court also not es t hat t he invest igat ion has yielded circum st ant ial evidence, including wit ness t est im onies, suggest ing a prem edit at ed conspiracy.
8. At t his st age, wit hout com m ent ing on t he m erit s of t he case, is observed t hat t here exist reasonable grounds t o believe t hat t he applicant 's involvem ent requires furt her scrut iny. Given t he gravit y 4 of t he offence and t he possibilit y of t am pering wit h evidence, and t he probabilit y of t he applicant wit h his hist ory of im personat ion, t his court is of t he view t hat he m ay elope or evade t he proceedings in t he present m at t er. Hence, t he court is not inclined t o grant bail t o t he applicant at t his st age.
9. Accordingly, t he bail applicat ion is rej ect ed. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 19.02.2025 NR/
learned First Addit ional Dist rict and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, while rej ect ing t he applicant 's bail applicat ion on 11.12.2024, observed t hat t he m at erial on record prim a facie suggest s t hat t he applicant conspired t o st age his deat h and m ay have played a role in t he m urder of Maninder Singh. The lower t hat t he evidence collect ed during t he invest igat ion, including wit ness t est im onies docum ent ary proof, indicat ed t hat t he applicant had com m it t ed a crim e of grave nat ure. I t was also not ed 3 t hat several ot her co- accused in t he case had been grant ed bail, but t he applicant ’s role was dist inct as he was t he m ain conspirat or. The court reasoned t hat t he applicant ’s release on bail could lead t o t he possibilit y of influencing wit nesses and t am pering wit h evidence.
6. Addit ionally, earlier order dat ed
19.10.2024, t he Sessions Court grant ed bail t o co- accused Raj esh alias Pappu and Bhikam Singh, cit ing t he fact t hat t heir role was lim it ed t o ident ifying t he body and obt aining a false deat h cert ificat e. The lower court also not ed t hat t he case against t hem was prim arily based on circum st ant ial evidence and t hat no direct involvem ent in t he alleged m urder had been est ablished. Sim ilarly, on
02.08.2024, co- accused Dharam pal Yadav was grant ed bail on t he grounds t hat his role was not as pivot al as t hat of t he applicant . ORD ER
7. Upon perusal of t he case diary and t he m at erials available on record, it is not ed t hat while co- accused persons have been grant ed bail, t he role of t he applicant is dist inct inasm uch as he is t he m ain accused, and t he allegat ions against him are of a grave nat ure. The court also not es t hat t he invest igat ion has yielded circum st ant ial evidence, including wit ness t est im onies, suggest ing a prem edit at ed conspiracy.
8. At t his st age, wit hout com m ent ing on t he m erit s of t he case, is observed t hat t here exist reasonable grounds t o believe t hat t he applicant 's involvem ent requires furt her scrut iny. Given t he gravit y 4 of t he offence and t he possibilit y of t am pering wit h evidence, and t he probabilit y of t he applicant wit h his hist ory of im personat ion, t his court is of t he view t hat he m ay elope or evade t he proceedings in t he present m at t er. Hence, t he court is not inclined t o grant bail t o t he applicant at t his st age.
9. Accordingly, t he bail applicat ion is rej ect ed. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 19.02.2025 NR/