Khushiram v. State of Uttarakhand

Khushiram, seeking his release on bail in connection with FIR No. 180 of 2024, registered at Police Station Premnagar, District Dehradun, for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The FIR was lodged on 08.09.2024 by one Amit Keshtri, cousin of the deceased Shankar Sharma. It is alleged that a social activist named Arun Bhatt posted a photograph of a dead body on a WhatsApp group, which the informant identified as that of his cousin. Upon reaching the mortuary of Subharti Hospital, the informant found that the death appeared to be homicidal.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR was initially lodged against unknown persons. The name of the applicant surfaced only during the course of investigation, and there is no direct or ocular evidence connecting him to the alleged incident. 1

4. It is further submitted that the deceased had been staying with the applicant for several years, which, by itself, cannot be treated as incriminating material. The statements of Tarun Singh and Lalit Kumar Dheeman, who are said to have seen the deceased last with the applicant, were allegedly recorded under duress and do not inspire complete confidence. The recovery of the alleged weapon, a brick, is not corroborated by any forensic report or FSL analysis.

5. The applicant contends that the entire case is based on conjectures and presumptions, and he has been falsely implicated. The chargesheet has already been filed; hence, no custodial interrogation is required. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Dehradun, has no criminal antecedents, and undertakes to cooperate with the trial.

6. The State opposes the bail application, contending that the applicant was last seen with the deceased on the night of 07.09.2024, and that the statements of Tarun Singh and Lalit Kumar Dheeman support this. It is submitted that during interrogation, the applicant made a disclosure statement, which led to the recovery of a blood- stained brick, allegedly used in the commission of the offence. The post-mortem report conducted by Dr. Maitrai Dhar records the cause of death as “hemorrhagic shock due to blunt force trauma to the head.” It is also submitted that the statements of the complainant and other family members support the state’s version and that the allegations are serious in nature, warranting continued incarceration of the applicant during trial.

7. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the State, and perused the material available on record. Upon hearing the submissions of the parties and perusing the record, 2 it is evident that the case of the state rests entirely on circumstantial evidence.

8. There is no direct or ocular account implicating the applicant. The ‘last seen’ theory is sought to be established through the statements of Tarun Singh and Lalit Kumar Dheeman, who allegedly saw the deceased in the company of the applicant on the night of

07.09.2024. However, such evidence, though relevant, cannot be treated as conclusive unless further corroborated by other incriminating links forming a complete chain of circumstances.

9. In State of U.P. vs. Satish (AIR 2005 SC 1000), the Supreme Court observed that the 'last seen' theory applies when the time interval between the accused and the deceased being seen together, and the discovery of the deceased is so short that it negates the possibility of another person's involvement. The Court cautioned that if there's a significant time gap, it becomes challenging to definitively conclude that the accused was the author of the crime.

10. Additionally, the recovery of a blood-stained brick, said to be the weapon of offence, was allegedly made pursuant to the applicant’s disclosure. Yet, no forensic report or serological analysis has been placed on record to establish that the blood found on the weapon matches that of the deceased.

11. In the absence of any forensic linkage between the recovered object and the deceased, the evidentiary worth of the recovery remains speculative at this stage. Moreover, the recovery is not shown to have been witnessed by any independent or neutral person, further weakening its evidentiary value at this stage. 3

12. While the offence alleged is undoubtedly serious, it is well settled that the gravity of the accusation alone cannot operate as the sole ground for denial of bail, particularly in the absence of strong prima facie material indicating the applicant’s involvement beyond speculative links. It must also be borne in mind that bail is the rule and jail the exception, particularly where the accused is not shown to be a flight risk or a threat to the fair conduct of the trial.

13. In view of the above, and without expressing any final opinion on the merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for the grant of bail.

14. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Khushiram, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- along with two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case. (ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness; and (iii) In case of breach of any condition, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 28.03.2025 NR NITESH RAWAT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc3988ad93d563d95c70eb77fa0ea4758e401cf436bdce9fb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=F691686B3C447434E89897BCDC0B6567DCE4B7108B324FFED3C8A159F3BDD0 3C, cn=NITESH RAWAT 4