I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

18^th JULY, 2025 FI RST BAI L APPLI CATI ON NO. 1687 OF 2024 Manpreet Singh Chahal alias Mani alias Chhuchi ..... Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate.

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Tumul Nainwal, Assistant Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, Brief Holder.

Counsel for the Informant/ : Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Victim Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate.

With FI RST BAI L APPLI CATI ON NO. 2128 OF 2024 Sadhu Singh ..... Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand .…Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate.

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Tumul Nainwal, Assistant Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, Brief Holder.

Counsel for the Informant/ : Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Victim Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate.

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

These Applications have been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail in connection with the First Information Report No.631 of 2022, registered at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Applicants are in judicial custody under Section 302 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”).

2. As per the respondent, on 13.10.2022 at around 08.30 a.m., Mahal Singh, the informant’s uncle, was reading a newspaper at his house. Two unknown persons came on a motorcycle and fired, due to which, Mahal Singh died on the spot. Six-seven days before the said incident, Mahal Singh received a phone call from Harjeet Singh (named accused) from Canada. He was demanding money from Mahal Singh. Harjeet Singh had threatened to kill him for not giving the money. The First Information Report was registered on 13.10.2022 at 23:09 hrs against Harjeet Singh. After completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed a charge-sheet against the present applicants and co-accused persons.

3. Heard Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.

Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the informant/victim.

4. The First Bail Application No.1687 of 2024 is being treated as a leading file.

5. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate, appearing for the applicants, contended that nobody has actually seen the assailants. The prosecution has come with the story that the applicants were shooters, who were hired by one of the co-accused to commit the offence, but the investigating officer has failed to connect any such strong evidence which can connect the applicants with the alleged crime. Karampal Singh, the alleged eye- witness and the informant of the present case has though stated in his statement, recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Code”) that both the assailants had run away on a motorcycle and one of them was carrying a pistol and further stated that he has seen the face of the assailants and he can recognize if they are brought before him, but, the such story is not narrated in the First Information Report, lodged by him after almost fourteen hours of the incident. The said delay has not been explained in the First Information Report which creates serious doubt on the prosecution version.

6. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate, further submitted that both the applicants are residents of District Mansa, Punjab and they have no concern with the present case. They had no motive to commit the alleged offence.

7. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate, appearing for the applicants, submitted that the photographs annexed with the counter affidavit, though are of the applicants but it do not reveal any time and date. The said photographs are of some public place and not the house of the deceased and as per the CCTV footage, the faces of the assailants were covere