IMPORTANT POINT
The court denied bail based on the circumstances of the murder and the applicant's insufficient evidence to prove non-involvement.

JUDGMENT :

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 527 of 2022, under Section 302/34 IPC, Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, the deceased Bhaskar telephoned his sister-in-law on 04.12.2022 between 8:30- 9:00 PM that he was with his friends. He was in the residence of his friend i.e. applicant Avdesh Singh Jeena, where the co-accused were also present and after a while he would go back to his home. Next morning, the informant, who happened to be the brother of the deceased came to know that the deceased has been killed. He lodged an FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the FIR has been lodged against four persons, including the applicant. One of them is minor and two others Kaushal Chilwal and Abhi Kashyap have already been granted bail by this Court. He would submit that the applicant has no criminal history. It is the applicant who informed police that the dead body of the deceased is lying in his house; the applicant thoroughly assisted the police in the investigation. It is argued that, in fact, the applicant was asleep in his house, where co-accused were partying. The deceased died of strangulation. But, it is argued that no finger prints have been obtained by the Police to connect the applicant with the killing of the deceased. He would also submit that, in fact, the Forensic Science Laboratory report does not connect the applicant with the crime.

5. Learned State counsel would submit that it is the applicant who had informed the police that a dead body is lying near a chowk. When police reached, the dead body was found in the house of the applicant. It has multiple injuries and the deceased had died due to strangulation.

6. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings.

7. It is true that co-accused Kaushal Chilwal has already been granted bail. The bail order is on record. Co-accused has been granted bail on different grounds. The Court had then noted that as per PW1, he was revealed the names of assailants by the Police. The Court also observed in para 9 of the bail order dated 21.05.2024 of the co-accused Kaushal Chilwal (BA1 No. 2659 of 2023) as follows:-

“9. PW1, the informant, has stated that he was revealed the names of assailants by the police. The question is that if the wife of informant was not telephoned on the date of incident, how the names of the applicant and the co-accused were recorded in the FIR.”

8. The case of the applicant is quite distinct. It is not a case of parity. As per the post mortem report, the death occurred due to strangulation. The dead body was found in the house of the applicant. As per inquest report, there were blood marks everywhere. There were empty cane of beer, empty bottles of liquor and various other articles. As if, somebody has partied and thereafter, killed the deceased. It is the applicant who is the best person to tell as to who killed the deceased. What is argued that the applicant was asleep in his house. At this stage, it may not be a ground to grant bail to the applicant.

9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

10. The bail application is rejected.