HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Bail Application No. 01 of 2025 In Criminal Appeal No.574 of 2024 Ajay Sharma ......Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ….Respondents Present: Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral) Instant appeal is preferred under Section 14 A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“the Act”) against the rejection of the bail of the appellant in Special Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2024, State Vs. Ajay Sharma pending in the court of Sessions Judge, Haridwar, which is based on Case Crime No. 124 of 2024, under Section 201 & 302 IPC and 3 (2) (v) of the Act. The appellant seeks bail in this appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The deceased Kartik had gone to attend the marriage on 19.02.2024 at 2:00, but he did not return. A 2 missing report was given and a case under Section 365 IPC was lodged. On 25.02.2024, the dead body of the deceased was located in the agriculture field. According to the prosecution, the appellant had illicit relations with a woman and the deceased had seen the appellant with that woman in a compromising position. Therefore, on the date of incident, he took the deceased alongwith him and killed him. According to the prosecution, the appellant had confessed his guilt and some recovery were also made from him. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the case is based on circumstantial evidence, but the chain of evidence is not complete to indicate that it is the appellant only, who had committed the offence. He would submit that the allegedly the CCTV footage was taken from the house of one Kuldeep, but Kuldeep is not a witness in the charge sheet. He would also submit that admittedly, in the CCTV footage, the date is shown as 31.01.2024. It is not clarified by the owner of the premises where the CCTV was installed as to how, it relates to the incident and why it may not relate to 31.01.2024, the date which is shown in the CCTV footages. It is also argued that based on the confessional statement only, the appellant has been implicated. 3 5. Learned State counsel would submit that the appellant had been seen in the CCTV footages, who has been identified by virtue of his clothes; she would submit that the CCTV belongs to the date of incident, which is 19.02.2024, but in the CCTV footages, the date is shown as 31.01.2024, because according to the owner of the premises, where CCTV was installed, its camera was running on some back date. She admits that owner of the premises Kuldeep has not been recorded and he is not the witness of the charge sheet. 6. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. There are three circumstances which are alleged against the appellant as follows:- (1) He had a motive as the deceased has seen him in a compromising position with a woman. No material has been shown to attribute this motive to the appellant. Has the deceased ever told it to anyone? No material has been placed before the Court. (2) The second material on which the prosecution strongly rely is the CCTV footages in which admittedly, the date shown is 31.01.2024. Whereas, according to the prosecution, the victim was found 4 missing after 15.02.2024, when he gone to attend the wedding. What is stated by the learned State counsel is that as per Kuldeep in whose house CCTV footage was installed, his CCTV was running on some back date. But, Kuldeep’s statement has not been recorded. (3) Last question that falls for consideration at this preliminary stage of bail is identification. In para 11 of its counter affidavit, the State has stated that in the CCTV footages images were not clear, but in the same paragraph stated that based on the clothes, the appellant and the victim have been identified. 7. Having considered, without adverting much on merits, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to bail. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 8. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. 9. The bail application is allowed. 5 10. Let the appellant be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 07.04.2025 Jitendra