Bail may be granted when the sole eye-witness testifies that the accused was not present at the scene of the crime and no specific role is attributed to them in the investigation.

Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings

SL. No. Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS and Registrar’s order with Signatures

Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.

2. Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned Brief Holder for the State.

3. Present bail application has been filed seeking grant of regular bail in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No. 199 of 2025, registered under Sections 103(1), 351(2), 191(2), 191(3), 109, 190, 3(5), 61(2) of B.N.S. at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. In the present case, an F.I.R. dated 28.04.2025 was registered under Sections 103(1), 109, 351(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 3(5) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against two named accused persons, including the present applicant, along with certain unknown persons. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the chargesheet wherein the present applicant has also been arrayed as an accused.

8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that there is only one eye-witness to the alleged incident, namely the complainant himself, who is the son of deceased Gurmeet Singh and brother of deceased Manpreet Singh. It is submitted that the said witness, in his examination-in-chief as well as in his cross-examination, has categorically stated that although he knows the present applicant but the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time; that, there is no specific role has been attributed to the applicant either in the F.I.R. or in the chargesheet; that, three co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by the competent Court.

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case; that, the applicant has been languishing in judicial custody since 24.05.2025; that he has no previous criminal antecedents; and that no incriminating article has been recovered from his possession; that, the implication of the applicant is based merely on suspicion and conjectures.

10. Learned Senior Counsel would also submit that the investigation has already been concluded and chargesheet has been filed and, therefore, there remains no possibility of tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing the witnesses; that, the applicant is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar and there is no likelihood of his absconding or evading the process of law; that, trial is likely to take considerable time in its conclusion and, therefore, the applicant deserves to be released on bail during pendency of the trial.

11. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposed the bail application. However, he does not dispute the fact that the applicant is in judicial custody since 24.05.2025 and that the chargesheet has already been submitted in the present case.

12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material brought on record, and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the statement of the sole eye-witness, the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail.

13. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

14. Let the applicant, Dinesh Kumar Saluja, be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid case crime number, on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.