In post-conviction bail applications, the presumption of innocence is unavailable. When evidence, such as surveillance footage capturing the accused entering the scene and sabotaging security equipment before the discovery of a crime, sufficiently suggests culpability, the court may properly deny bail.

BAIL APPLICATION

By: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (delivered orally on 26.05.2026; joined in opinion by Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.)

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 29.07.2022, passed in Sessions Trial No.11 of 2019, State Vs. Ashish Kashyap, by the court of 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital. By it, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302, 394, 411 of IPC and sentenced accordingly. The appellant seeks bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. According to the prosecution, when PW1, Umesh Kumar, returned to his house on 09.09.2018, he found his brother lying on the bed with a rope tied around his neck. He took his brother, the deceased Manoj Kumar Kashyap, to the hospital, where he was declared brought dead.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no evidence against the appellant. The prosecution relies on CCTV footage which was taken from 10:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. of the date of the incident, and

according to the prosecution, the appellant was seen entering the house of the deceased at 10:11 p.m. on that date. But, it is argued that what happened between 10:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. was not seen in the CCTV footage of PW1’s house, which creates doubt in the prosecution case. It is further argued that other cameras were also installed inside the house, but the appellant was not seen in the other CCTV footages.

5. Learned State Counsel submits that the informant has supported the prosecution case. There is CCTV footage in which the appellant is seen entering the house of the deceased, thereafter disconnecting the cameras by cutting the wires. It is argued that when PW1, the informant, reached the house, he found that the deceased was lying on the bed.

6. Learned counsel for the informant submits that, in fact, in some of the suggestions put on behalf of the appellant, it was suggested to the witnesses that he had been planted in the CCTV footage.

7. It is a stage of bail post conviction. Much of the discussion is not expected of. The presumption of innocence is not available to the appellant because it is bail post conviction. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the proceedings and in any other matter.

8. The deceased was found dead on the bed at 11:00 p.m. by PW1, Umesh Kumar, the informant. The CCTV footage, according to the prosecution, reveals that at 10:11 p.m. on the date of the incident, the appellant was seen entering the house of the deceased. Thereafter, he immediately cut the wires and disconnected the cameras. The subsequent recording of the day could not be available because the wires had already been disconnected. PW1, Umesh Kumar, himself identified the appellant as the person who entered the house at the time of the incident at 10:11 p.m.

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

10. The bail application is rejected.

11. List this case in due course for final hearing.

(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

26.05.2026 26.05.2026

BS