2025:UHC:2248 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No. 152 of 2025 Vijay Rawat Urf Bittu ...Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent Presence: 1. Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mrs. Neelima Mishra Joshi, learned legal aid counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned A.G.A. with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. (Oral) The instant bail application has been filed through the legal aid counsel Mrs. Neelima Mishra on behalf of the applicant, who is praying for regular bail. The High Court Legal Services Committee (HCLSC) assigned this case to Mrs. Neelima Mishra. 2. The present applicant ‘Vijay Rawat Urf Bittu’ S/o Sri Prithvi Singh has been chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC P.S. Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun, pursuant to First Information Report lodged on 16.03.2021 bearing FIR No. 104 of 2021. 3. The brief facts as per the prosecution case is that a First Information Report was lodged by one Ishrat Parveen on 16.03.2021 at P.S. Kotwali Dehradun registered as FIR No. 04 of 2021 against some unknown persons alleging therein that her sister “Nushrat alias Muskan” married with one “Javed” r/o Adhoiwala two years back, who indulged her in immoral 2025:UHC:2248 2 trafficking and on 14.03.2021 she was missing from her house at 7:30 PM and thereafter it was found that her sister was in hotel Ambassador, Rajpur Road in Kamra No. 321 with some unknown person and when the complainant reached there then she found the dead body of her sister 4. In the said crime the applicant was arrested on 02.03.2021 and thereafter the chargesheet was filed against the applicant and thereafter the charges were framed and the trial has been commenced and almost 22 witnesses have been examined. 5. In order to assist, the legal aid counsel Mr. Vinod Sharma was also appointed as an Amicus Curiae in this case and the matter is posted for today. Mr. Vinod Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae argued that the applicant was not named in the FIR and in such an eventuality, the “TIP” was a mandatory requirement, but in this case no such “TIP” was conducted, which itself is evident from the statement of PW22 the I.O. concerned. 6. The next argument he has advanced is that the entire prosecution is based upon the CCTV footages, which as per law is a secondary evidence and the certificate under Section 65B(4) of Evidence Act is necessary, but no such certificate has been produced in the Trial Court. He submits that in absence of the certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act the CCTV footages evidence is inadmissible. 7. Apart from this, he submits that there is no direct evidence and as per the prosecution particularly as per the statement of PW9 at the time of incident the applicant was taking drinks but the finger prints of the applicant were not taken though the glasses and the liquor bottle were recovered from the incident. He further submits that footprints of the applicant in order to ascertain whether he was in the hotel room or not was 2025:UHC:2248 3 also not taken by the I.O. He further submits that the PW1 the complainant the sister of the deceased in her statement clearly pointed in question no. 13, 14 and 15 that deceased “Nushrat alias Muskan” was brought by Javed in the Hotel but this aspect has not been included in the investigation. He submits that infact the conduct of “Javed” is appears to be doubtful but this aspect is completely missing in the investigation. 8. Mr. Vinod Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae further argued that entire prosecution case is based upon incomplete investigation. Mr. Vinod Sharmaargued that Javed infact was the person, who dropped the deceased at hotel Ambassador, but this part was also completely missing in the investigation. He submits that in a very casual and mechanical manner the chargesheet has been filed. 9. On the other side, learned State counsel submits that the argument as advanced by learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Vinod Sharma will affect the ongoing trial particularly when almost 22 witnesses have been examined. He further submits that this argument is totally misconceived that 65B certificate was not produced and infact 65B certificate was produced. 10. No doubt all these aspects are the subject matter of the trial but here in this case admittedly the applicant was arrested on 20.03.2021 and since then he is in jail though at this juncture there is no need of custodial interrogation. 11. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that the applicant is in jail since 20.03.2021 and the chargesheet has already been filed and there is no need of custodial interrogation, this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 2025:UHC:2248 4 12. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant Vijay Rawat alias Bittu be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 26.03.2025 PR