IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Second Bail Application No.250 of 2024

Sankesh Rana alias Sanket Rana ....Applicant (In Jail)

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent

Presence: Mr. M.S. Dhapola, learned counsel for the Applicant.

Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned AGA for the State.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present bail application has been moved by the Applicant, Sankesh

Rana alias Sanket Rana, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking his release on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 45 of 2022, registered at Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, for the offences punishable under

Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. As per the First Information Report, the brother of the informant had

been missing since 13.02.2022. Despite earnest efforts, he could not be traced, whereupon a missing report was lodged on 17.02.2022 at Police Station Khatima. Subsequently, on 19.02.2022 at about 8:30 a.m., a freshly dug pit was noticed near the sewer adjoining the land of one Sugreev Singh, from which the dead body of the informant’s brother

was recovered.

3. It is alleged that the deceased’s wife, Smt. Rajnandani, was having an

illicit relationship with the present Applicant, who resided in the same village. The First Information Report further recites that on 02.02.2022,

the deceased had a quarrel with the Applicant over the said relationship, during which the Applicant allegedly threatened him with dire consequences. On the basis of this alleged motive, it was asserted that the Applicant, in connivance with Smt. Rajnandani, murdered the deceased and buried his body in the pit so as to conceal the crime.

4. The Applicant was arrested on 21.02.2022 and has remained in judicial custody since then. His first bail application, being Bail Application No. 1857 of 2022, was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.12.2023. The present application is his second request for bail before this Court.

5. The charge sheet was submitted under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where the trial is presently pending. As per the record, ten prosecution witnesses have been examined before the learned trial court so far.

6. Learned counsel for the Applicant, Shri M.S. Dhapola, assisted by Shri Nandan Arya, submitted that the entire case of the State rests merely on suspicion and a purported confessional statement, which by itself carries no evidentiary value unless duly corroborated by an independent recovery in terms of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further submitted that there is no eyewitness account or direct evidence linking the Applicant to the alleged homicidal act.

7. Learned Counsel for the Applicant argued that the First Information Report was lodged only after recovery of the dead body on 19.02.2022, whereas the missing report dated 17.02.2022 contained no suspicion or allegation against the Applicant. It was thus contended that the implication of the Applicant was an afterthought, developed subsequently to lend colour to the incident.

8. It was contended that the alleged recoveries, including the deceased’s clothes and the sweater said to have been worn by the Applicant, are neither supported by independent witnesses nor verified through any forensic analysis. The State has not produced any FSL report establishing linkage between the recovered articles and the deceased or the Applicant.

9. Learned Counsel for the Applicant further pointed out several anomalies in the case set up by the State. It was submitted that the shirt and jacket of the deceased were allegedly removed after the killing, even though, according to the prosecution, the body was buried immediately thereafter. The clothes of the deceased were stated to have been recovered from the rooftop of one Vinod @ Bindu several days later, yet no explanation has been offered as to how they remained unnoticed for nearly six days. It has also not been clari