2025:UHC:1447 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.2484 of 2024 Munesh Yadav @ Mukesh Yadav ......Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Presence: Mr.Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral) Having considered the bail application, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate, and perused the material on record, the following findings are made: 2. The applicant, Mukesh Yadav, is accused in FIR No. 217 of 2024 under Sections 302, 201, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar. The prosecution alleges that the applicant conspired with his family members to stage his own death by identifying the dead body of an unknown person as his own. It is further alleged that this was done to escape pending criminal cases, financial liabilities, and insurance obligations. 2 3. The applicant, on the other hand, contends that he has been falsely implicated. It is argued that he has been living under the identity of Munesh Yadav and was arrested in 2022 by the police of Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh, whereupon he was accused of faking his own death. The applicant claims that the case has been fabricated, and that the prosecution lacks any direct evidence linking him to the alleged murder. It is further argued that the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of nearly nine years, raising doubts about its veracity. 4. The prosecution has opposed the bail application, citing the serious nature of the allegations. It is contended that the applicant not only conspired with his family to stage his death but also committed murder. The prosecution argues that there exists material evidence, including statements of witnesses, to establish the applicant's involvement. It is further argued that if released on bail, the applicant may abscond or tamper with evidence, given his prior criminal history. 5. The learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, while rejecting the applicant's bail application on 11.12.2024, observed that the material on record prima facie suggests that the applicant conspired to stage his death and may have played a role in the murder of Maninder Singh. The lower court found that the evidence collected during the investigation, including witness testimonies and documentary proof, indicated that the applicant had committed a crime of grave nature. It was also noted 3 that several other co-accused in the case had been granted bail, but the applicant’s role was distinct as he was the main conspirator. The court reasoned that the applicant’s release on bail could lead to the possibility of influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence. 6. Additionally, in an earlier order dated 19.10.2024, the Sessions Court granted bail to co- accused Rajesh alias Pappu and Bhikam Singh, citing the fact that their role was limited to identifying the body and obtaining a false death certificate. The lower court also noted that the case against them was primarily based on circumstantial evidence and that no direct involvement in the alleged murder had been established. Similarly, on 02.08.2024, co-accused Dharampal Yadav was granted bail on the grounds that his role was not as pivotal as that of the applicant. ORDER 7. Upon perusal of the case diary and the materials available on record, it is noted that while co- accused persons have been granted bail, the role of the applicant is distinct inasmuch as he is the main accused, and the allegations against him are of a grave nature. The court also notes that the investigation has yielded circumstantial evidence, including witness testimonies, suggesting a premeditated conspiracy. 8. At this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, it is observed that there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant's involvement requires further scrutiny. Given the gravity 4 of the offence and the possibility of tampering with evidence, and the probability of the applicant with his history of impersonation, this court is of the view that he may elope or evade the proceedings in the present matter. Hence, the court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 19.02.2025 NR/