2025:UHC:2245 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.2173 of 2024 Pawan ....Applicant (In Jail) Vs. State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral) The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-Pawan, who has been in judicial custody since 28.01.2024, in connection with FIR No.11 of 2024, registered at Police Station Jhankaiya, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections 302, 307, 394, 120B, 458, 411 and 34 IPC. 2. The FIR was initially lodged against unknown persons in relation to a double murder that took place at Bharamal Temple, where Mahant Hari Giri Maharaj and his disciple, sevadar Roop Singh Bisht, were allegedly murdered in an attempt at robbery. The assailants purportedly used sticks (lathis) to commit the assault. Another sevadar, Nanhe Lal, was also attacked and sustained injuries and survived at that instance, but later succumbed to death due to drowning. 3. It has been alleged that, the crime was committed with the intent to rob the donation box of the temple, and the applicant is alleged to be one of the individuals involved. Certain recoveries were made in the case, including looted money, a dongle, and a stick allegedly used in the assault. The applicant’s bail plea was earlier rejected by the learned Additional District Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, vide order dated 26.09.2024. 1 2025:UHC:2245 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to extraneous considerations and that the case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence, which fails to establish an unbroken chain linking the applicant to the commission of the alleged offense. 5. It has been contended that the only eyewitness, Nanhe Lal, passed away due to drowning after nineteen days, and his statements were never recorded before the Magistrate, thereby rendering his testimony unreliable. Furthermore, it has been submitted that no forensic evidence, such as an FSL report, has been produced by the prosecution to substantiate its claims. 6. The applicant has also emphasized that he has a family, including minor children and an aged mother, who are dependent on him, and that his prolonged incarceration would cause undue hardship to them. Additionally, it has been pointed out that other accused persons, against whom similar allegations have been leveled, have already been granted bail. 7. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application, asserting that the applicant is involved in a heinous offense comprising multiple murders and robbery. It has been argued that the prosecution has gathered circumstantial evidence, including digital footprints, which establish the applicant’s role in the crime. The investigating agency has claimed that the co-accused, was using the digital device of the deceased at specific locations, which ultimately led to thearrest of the applicant and the Co-accused. 2 2025:UHC:2245 8. The Court observes that the location of the co-accused was traced through the dongle, which was found in a remote jungle area with weak signals, raising concerns about the accuracy of the tracking method. 9. This Court also finds that the prosecution's case is primarily based on circumstantial evidence, and the link between the applicant and the alleged crime is not conclusively established. 10. The prosecution has also relied on the testimony of a witness, PW–3 Jagdish, who was also present at the site of the incident but hid during the incident and hence could not identify the applicant. 11. Moreover, as per the prosecution’s version, the assailants were armed with sickles and allegedly cut wood from the jungle to fashion sticks, which were then used as weapons in the assault. It has also been noted that the money recovered from the applicant was stained with blood, and blood was reportedly found on the alleged weapon of assault. However, no forensic report has been produced to establish that the blood traces match those of the deceased persons. 12. Additionally, it is relevant to consider that the applicant is a resident of Pilibhit and was arrested from his home. The recovery memo and the statement of S.I. Kamlesh Bhatt regarding the recoveries do not sufficiently clarify the precise manner in which the recoveries were made. 13. The applicant has remained in custody since 28.01.2024, and given that the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude, further detention at this stage may not be necessary. The charge sheet 3 2025:UHC:2245 has already been filed, reducing concerns regarding the applicant’s potential interference with the investigation. 14. In light of the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Pawan be released on bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions:- i. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness. ii. He shall appear before the trial court as and when required and shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission. iii. In case of any breach of these conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 26.03.2025 Arti 4 ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH Date: 2025.06.23 16:55:33 +05'30'