Presence:

Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Vishwaketu Vaidya and Ms. Ruchi JJ learned counsel for the Applicant.

Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned brief holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral)

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking release on bail during trial in connection with FIR No. 416 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025, registered under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Pathri, District Haridwar. It is stated to be the first bail application before this Court, the earlier applications having been rejected, including the second one by the learned Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar on 12.01.2026.

As per the State’s case, the FIR was lodged on 14.07.2025 regarding the disappearance of the deceased, who had left his house on the evening of 13.07.2025 for the purpose of transporting goods but did not return. On the next day, his dead body was found in a mango orchard area near Kishanpur, lying in the rear portion of his e-rickshaw, with a ligature mark around the neck indicating strangulation. The mobile phone of the deceased was not found at the spot.

During investigation, the involvement of the present applicant surfaced along with a co-accused, who is the wife of the deceased. The State alleges that both were in a relationship and had conspired to eliminate the deceased. It is alleged that the deceased was called on the pretext of transporting mango crates, taken towards a secluded orchard area, and was administered intoxicants, after which he was strangulated using a cloth. It is further alleged that certain articles of the deceased, including personal belongings, were thrown into a drain.

The applicant was arrested on 16.07.2025 from Laksar Railway Station. At the time of arrest, a mobile phone and cash were allegedly recovered from his possession. Subsequently, on his pointing out, certain articles of the deceased were stated to have been recovered from bushes near a drain, while the mobile phone of the deceased could not be recovered.

Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet dated 01.10.2025 has been submitted against the applicant and co-accused under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of mere suspicion and there is no direct or cogent evidence connecting him with the alleged offence. It is argued that the entire State case rests on circumstantial evidence, which is weak in nature and the chain of circumstances is not complete.

It is further submitted that there is no eyewitness to the alleged incident and even the FIR does not name the present applicant, thereby making his subsequent implication doubtful. Learned counsel contends that no recovery of any weapon, blood-stained clothes or any other incriminating article has been effected from the possession of the applicant.

Learned counsel next submits that the alleged motive of illicit relationship is wholly baseless and unsupported by any reliable evidence. Mere call detail records, it is argued, do not establish either such relationship or the presence of the applicant at the place of occurrence.

It is also argued that the alleged confessional statements before the police are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon against the applicant. Further, the post-mortem report also does not conclusively connect the applicant with the alleged crime.

Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is a law-abiding citizen having no criminal antecedents and there is no likelihood of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. On these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.

Per contra, learned Stat