IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No. 2056 of 2024 Rohan ......Applicant Vs.

State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Presence:

Mr. Susheel Kumar, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the Applicant.

Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral)

1. The present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the Applicant, Rohan, seeking his release on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 314 of 2024, registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Haridwar. The Applicant’s earlier bail application was rejected by the learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar, vide order dated 01.10.2024. Aggrieved thereby, the Applicant has preferred the present bail application before this Court. The Applicant has been in judicial custody since his arrest.

2. According to the State’s case, an FIR dated 18.04.2024 was lodged by the complainant, the father of the deceased Rakhi, alleging that his daughter had committed suicide on 14.04.2024. It is alleged that prior to her death, the deceased was being blackmailed and mentally harassed by the present applicant, Rohan. The complainant stated that the applicant possessed certain photographs of the deceased and was using them to blackmail her, which drove her to take the extreme step of ending her life.

3. On 14.04.2024, the deceased was found hanging in her room. Upon arrival, the police conducted inquest proceedings and allegedly recovered a handwritten suicide note purportedly left by the deceased. The note mentioned the name of the Applicant and accused him of blackmailing her.

4. Based on the complaint, Case Crime No. 314 of 2024 was registered under Section 306 IPC at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Haridwar. The Applicant was subsequently arrested and has been in custody since. The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed. During the trial, one witness, Raju Singh (PW–1), has already been examined before the learned trial court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. Learned counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Gaurav Singh contended that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that there is an unexplained delay of four days in lodging the FIR, which itself casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the State’s story. The police station is situated merely about one kilometre from the place of occurrence, yet the father of the deceased did not report the incident promptly, suggesting that the case was an afterthought.

7. Learned Counsel for the Applicant further argued that the alleged suicide note, which forms the very foundation of the prosecution case, has not been sent for forensic handwriting examination, and its authenticity thus remains unverified. It was submitted that even the FIR does not refer to any suicide note, though the police claim to have recovered it at the very outset. This inconsistency, it is urged, strongly suggests that the note was subsequently fabricated and planted with a view to falsely implicate the Applicant.

8. Learned counsel for the Applicant contended that there is no evidence of any photograph being recovered or verified, and the entire allegation of blackmail is based on hearsay and assumption. The Applicant is a young boy of 20 years with no criminal antecedents. It was submitted that the essential ingredients of abetment under Section 306 IPC are absent. There is no evidence that the applicant either instigated or actively aided the deceased to commit suicide.

9. It is lastly submitted that the Applicant has been in custody for a long time, and further incarceration would serve no purpose, as the investigation has concluded and the charge sheet has been filed. It was thus prayed that the applicant be released on bail on suitable terms.

10. Learned Coun