Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 319 (UTT)

HUSSAIN v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA2/236/2025 · 2026-04-17

Alok Mahra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA2 No. 236 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The applicant – Hussain, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 390 of 2021, under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, registered at P.S.- Pathri, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. 4. In this case, an FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased, in which, it was alleged that the deceased went alongwith two other persons in a motorcycle, but, when he did not return back home, a search was made. After search, his dead body was found near Nala in the night of 26.10.2021. Immediately, when the dead body was recovered, information was given to the Police Station. The Police party reached at the spot and a bunch of blood-stained hairs were found in the fist of the deceased, which was taken. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the case as there was no eye witness to the murder, thus, the whole case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, but, the chain is not complete; that the prosecution has failed to establish its story beyond reasonable doubt; that as per the FIR, three persons were named, but, the other two persons, who as per the FIR, called the deceased, have not been made the accused and only the applicant has been made the accused. Learned counsel has relied on the statement given by PW1 and PW2 on the basis of which he has submitted that recovery was prepared in the Police Station and not on the spot and that applicant is in judicial custody since last more than four and a half years. 6. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the bail application. He would submit that the bunch of blood stained hairs, which was recovered from the fist of the deceased were sent for forensic test and in the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, bunch of blood stained hairs, which were recovered from the fist of the deceased, matched with the DNA profile of the hairs of the applicant. Learned State Counsel further submitted that the DNA of the blood found in the cloths recovered from the applicant matched with the deceased; that death was caused due to ante mortem injury and furthermore the recovery of the weapons were also recovered from the pointing out of the applicant; that the trial is almost complete as all the prosecution witnesses have been examined. 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that prima facie, prosecution has established the involvement of the applicant in the crime. Since, the trial is almost complete, there is no good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail and the present bail applications deserve to be rejected. 8. The present bail application is hereby rejected. (Alok Mahra, J.) 17.04.2026 Ujjwal