HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No. 1623 of 2024 Krishna Joshi ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:-

Mr. Pawan Kumar Joshi, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, AGA with Mr. Himanshu Sain, Brief Holder for the State.

Bail Application No. 2049 of 2024 Abhishek Rawat ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:-

Mr. Pawan Kumar Joshi, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, AGA with Mr. Himanshu Sain, Brief Holder for the State.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Since both these bail applications arise from one and the same FIR, they are heard together and being decided by this common order.

2. Applicants Krishna Joshi and Abhishek Rawat are in judicial custody in Case Crime/FIR No. 111 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201, 397, 411 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar. They have sought their release on bail. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The deceased left his house on 10.06.2023 at about 06:00 in the morning so as to run e-rickshaw. He did not return. On 11.06.2023, his dead body was recovered.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that there is no evidence against the applicants; the alleged recovery of e-rickshaw and other weapons hasbeen shown from a garden, which is a public place; had anybody seen the articles, information would have been lodged, which is not lodged. It is argued that that in the CCTV footages, the applicants’ clothes are not seen as blood stained; therefore, it is a case fit for bail.

6. Learned State Counsel would submit that there are immense evidence against the applicants; the applicants have been spotted in the CCTV footages alighting from the e- rickshaw of the deceased and proceeding to the direction, where the dead body of the deceased was found; in the same CCTV footages, the applicants have been seen returning without the deceased. It is also argued that at the instance of the applicants, e-rickshaw and other articles were recovered.

7. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding.

8. Generally, last seen evidence per se is not strong piece of evidence. In the instant case, there is not only the last seen evidence, but CCTV footages also, of which description has categorically recorded in a document enclosed with the counter affidavit. The applicants have been seen taking the deceased in the direction where the dead body of the deceased was found and returning without him. In the same locality, the dead body of the deceased was found. According to the prosecution, at the instance of the applicants, the e-rickshaw and other articles were recovered. 9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for bail. Accordingly, the bail applications deserve to be rejected.

10. The bail applications are rejected.

(Ravindra Maithani, J)

11.02.2025 Avneet/