Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 2284
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Ashish Naithani, J
Gaurav Bisht @ Parul – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
SECOND BAIL APPLICATION NO. 201 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Pawan Mishra
For the Respondents: Mr. Akshay Latwal
The gravity of the offense alone cannot suffice to deny bail when evidentiary circumstances have shifted significantly and procedural irregularities exist.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Bail Application - The applicant, facing serious charges, contended that the material witnesses have not supported the prosecution's case fully and contradictory statements weaken the charge. Procedural lapses in arrest and established animosity suggested possible false implication. (Paras 1-17)
(B) The court found significant changes in circumstances since the first bail application, determining that gravity of the offense alone cannot deny bail in light of evidentiary shifts and long custody duration. (Paras 17-18)
Facts of the case:
The applicant is in custody related to FIR for arson and related offenses, with a history that reflects a deliberate attempt at malicious implication amidst familial conflicts.
Findings of Court:
The court noted the lack of supportive testimonies and procedural irregularities leading to the conclusion that continued detention is unwarranted.
Issues: Whether the lack of supporting testimonies and procedural lapses warrant reconsideration of the bail status.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that without strong evidence and in view of procedural irregularities, the applicant's continued detention was unjustified, emphasizing evidence integrity.
Result: Bail Application Allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the bail application and initial arguments. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 9) |
| 2. argument on procedural issues and witness credibility. (Para 6 , 8 , 12) |
| 3. court's observations on changed circumstances affecting the case. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. acknowledgment of legal principle that bail should not solely depend on the seriousness of the offense. (Para 17) |
| 5. final decision allowing bail. (Para 18) |
Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present matter pertains to the second bail application filed by the Applicant, Gaurav Bisht alias Parul (male), aged about 29 years, son of Late Satendra Singh, resident of House No.13, Block-1, Nadi Rispana Road, Karanpur, Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 186 of 2024, registered at Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun, for offences punishable under Sections 125, 326(g), 62, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The Applicant's first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2025, upon consideration of the gravity of the offence and the prima facie material available on record, including CCTV footage, witness statements, and the recovery of a partially burned wick from the spot, all of which pointed towards a deliberate attempt at arson.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. In this second bail application, learned counsel for the Applicant submits that material witnesses, namely the complainant (PW1) and her daughter (PW2), have now been examined before the trial court, and their testimonies fail to implicate the Applicant.
5. It is contended that both witnesses have neither supported the prosecution’s case in its entirety nor identified the Applicant as one of the perpetrators. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions between their depositions before the court and their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., thereby eroding the substratum of the prosecution’s case.
6. Learned counsel also points out that no Test Identification Parade was conducted by the Investigating Officer, which, in a case of this nature where the perpetrators were allegedly unknown, creates serious doubts about the correctness of the investigation.
7. It is urged that the CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution is disputed, and no cogent forensic confirmation of the Applicant’s identity has been placed on record.
8. Another significant contention advanced on behalf of the Applicant is that his arrest was not in compliance with the mandate of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India, as the grounds of arrest were not communicated in writing at the time of arrest, which renders his continued incarceration unconstitutional.
9. It is further submitted that there exists a prior enmity between the Applicant and the complainant’s family on account of the alleged elopement of the complainant’s son with the Applicant’s wife, which has been admitted by the complainant in her Section 161 statement. It is thus argued that the Applicant’s implication is motivated by malice and is a result of a personal grudge.
10. Learned counsel for the Applicant stresses that the Applicant has no prior criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident of Dehradun, and undertakes not to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner.
11. It is further submitted that with the key witnesses now examined and the material contradictions evident, the possibility of the Applicant interfering with the trial is minimal.
12. Per contra, learned AGA for the State has opposed the bail application, reiterating the serious nature of the offence. It is argued that the act of throwing a petrol bomb into a residential house, even if it did not explode, is a grave act endangering human life and public safety.
13. It is submitted that the CCTV footage and recovery of the partially burned wick continue to substantiate the prosecution’s case, and granting bail a
