2025:UHC:2390 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI 27th March, 2025 FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2288 of 2024 Shahraaz …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Pranav Singh, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, A.G.A. Counsel for Informant : Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. The present bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved by the applicant-Shahraaz, who is in judicial custody since 17.05.2024, in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 384 of 2024, initially registered under Section 365 IPC and later converted to Sections 302 and 201 IPC, registered at Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. 2. The FIR was lodged on 14.05.2024 by the informant, alleging that his daughter had left the house on 13.05.2024 at around 9:00 PM, informing that she was going to a friend's house, but never returned. Initially registered against unknown persons under Section 365 IPC, the case took a different turn during investigation with the recovery of the body of the 1 2025:UHC:2390 deceased a month later and the addition of Sections 302 and 201 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated merely on the basis of suspicion due to his acquaintance with the deceased. It is urged that the case is based solely on circumstantial evidence and that there is no direct eye-witness account. 4. Learned counsel further points to the mobile location data collected during the investigation, which indicates that three mobile phones—belonging to the deceased, the applicant Shahraaz, and one Asif (who is also cited as the last seen witness)—were detected at or near the relevant location around the time of the incident. It is further pointed out that it was Asif who first informed the family of the deceased that he had met both the applicant and the deceased together on the same day, and yet, no explanation has been offered by the investigating agency for not examining his role more closely. 5. It is also submitted that the applicant received “WhatsApp” messages from the mobile number of the deceased even after the purported date of the incident, i.e., 13.05.2024. The existence of such messages creates a serious doubt as to the time and sequence of events and, at the very least, raises questions that require thorough scrutiny at the stage of trial. 6. The applicant further asserts that he has no prior criminal antecedents and has cooperated throughout the investigation. 2 2025:UHC:2390 7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail application. It is submitted that the deceased and the applicant were engaged to be married, and the applicant developed animosity on learning that the deceased was in touch with other young men. 8. It is contended that this served as the motive for the commission of the offence. 9. The State places reliance on the statements of witnesses, including Mohrram Ali (reporter), Constable Deepak Mamgain, and Constable Rahul Kumar, recorded under Section 164 CrPC, to substantiate the theory of last-seen together and the recovery of the debris of the deceased's mobile phone on the basis of the applicant's pointing out. 10. The report from “Reliance Communications” confirming the IMEI number matching the deceased's handset is also relied upon. 11. The learned Government Advocate further contended that although the cause of death could not be ascertained in the post-mortem report due to the advanced decomposition of the body — which was found about a month after the victim went missing — it still implicates the applicant as being responsible for her death. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the record, it is evident that the prosecution's case is primarily based on circumstantial evidence. The mobile phone location data, as collected during the investigation, indicates 3 2025:UHC:2390 that the devices belonging to the deceased, the applicant, and Asif were present at or near the scene of the incident. 13. The case, however, proceeds to implicate the applicant alone. Whether the prosecution’s reliance on the location data selectively is justified, and whether the role of Asif, particularly as the person who first informed the family about having met the deceased and the applicant, has been adequately investigated, are matters which fall within the exclusive domain of the trial court and must be adjudicated upon after full appreciation of evidence. 14. In addition to the above this Court also takes note of the following: “1. Unascertained Cause of Death: It is pertinent to note that the body of the deceased was recovered in a highly decomposed state, nearly a month after the victim was reported missing. The medical officer who conducted the post-mortem was unable to determine the cause of death or identify any specific external or internal injuries on account of the advanced decomposition. In the absence of conclusive medical evidence linking the death to any violent act, the prosecution’s case remains speculative at this stage.” 2. Circumstantial Nature of the Evidence: The entire case hinges upon circumstantial evidence. Neither the sequence of events nor the cause of death is clearly established through direct or scientific evidence. The selective inference drawn from mobile location data does not, by itself, 4 2025:UHC:2390 complete the chain of circumstances to prima facie point to the applicant’s guilt. 3. Lack of Forensic or Recovery Evidence Corroborating Homicide: There is no recovery of any weapon, or forensic material, to suggest homicidal violence. The debris of the deceased’s mobile phone recovered on the applicant’s alleged pointing out is of limited probative value in the absence of independent corroboration or forensic matching of fingerprints or DNA. 4. Role of Another Suspect Unexplored: It also appears from the record that the role of Asif, who is stated to be the last person to have seen the applicant and deceased together and who also first informed the family, has not been adequately examined. The selective focus of investigation raises questions of parity which require closer scrutiny at trial. 5. WhatsApp Messages Post-Date of Alleged Offence: The applicant’s claim regarding the receipt of WhatsApp messages from the deceased’s number even after the alleged date of the incident further casts doubt on the exact timeline and requires deeper investigation. 6. No Criminal Antecedents and Completed Investigation: The applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained in custody since 17.05.2024. The charge sheet has already been filed, and further custodial interrogation is not warranted.” 15. Hence, without going into further details, and 5 2025:UHC:2390 taking into consideration the unascertained cause of death owing to the advanced state of decomposition; the wholly circumstantial nature of the prosecution’s case; the absence of forensic evidence suggestive of homicidal violence; the unexplored role of another individual last seen with the deceased; the applicant’s assertion of having received WhatsApp messages from the deceased’s number after the alleged date of the incident; and the fact that the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents and the charge sheet has already been filed—this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 16. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 17. Let the applicant—Shahraaz, be released on bail, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness; (ii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each and every date fixed unless exempted by the court concerned; (iii) In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 27.03.2025 SB 6 SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c2 4b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A54 2D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5D D9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.04.01 18:49:11 +05'30'