HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No. 1492 of 2025 Baba Anoop Singh alias Bhai Anoop Singh ........Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. H.S. Mahra, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Government Advocate assisted by Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, DAG and Mr. K.S. Rawal, AGA for the State. Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Raghav Gulati and Mr. Rahul Kishor, Advocates for the complainant. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant Baba Anoop Singh alias Bhai Anoop Singh is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 83 of 2024, under Sections 302, 307, 34 & 120-B IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, P.S. Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. According to the FIR, on 28.03.2024, when the deceased Tarsem Singh was sitting on his chair in the courtyard of Langar Hall of Nanakmatta Sahib Gurudwara, two motorcycle borne assailants came and sought him dead. A named FIR has been lodged against various persons, including the applicant. Suspicion was raised that it is the applicant also, who is involved in the case. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that, according to the prosecution, on a phone, which was being used by the applicant, the wife of the alleged shooter made a call on 06.11.2023, 2 but the alleged incident took place on 28.03.2024; mere one call cannot connect the applicant to the crime. 5. Learned Government Advocate submits that the applicant was involved in the conspiracy; it is he, who financed the entire killing of the deceased person; he was constantly in touch with the co-accused as well as he was also in touch with the wife of the co- accused shooter telephonically; after the incident, the applicant absconded and he was apprehended after more than one year; he is named in the FIR. It is also argued that there was an enmity between the applicant and the deceased, therefore, he had a motive to kill the deceased. 6. 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. 7. Motive alone may not implicate a person in a crime. What is being stated is that a call was made on 06.11.2023 by the wife of the co-accused shooter on a phone, which was being used by the applicant. The incident took place on 28.03.2024. In addition to it, it is argued that the applicant was absconding. This may be his conduct. But, how can he be said to be involved in the conspiracy? This probably may find scrutiny during trial. 8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. The bail application is allowed. 3 10. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 09.10.2025 Avneet/