HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No. 463 of 2023 Krishna alias Kishan ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Vinay Bhatt, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Rakesh Joshi, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. (Oral) 1. The applicant is currently in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 0093 of 2021, registered under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at P.S. Kotwali, Almora. He has filed an application seeking bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. As per the FIR, the applicant allegedly harassed and tortured the deceased on a regular basis. On 14.09.2021, at approximately 8:00 AM, the informant received news that his daughter had passed away. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, making it a case of circumstantial evidence. It was also contended that the applicant was not present at the scene when the incident occurred. The counsel further stated that the 2 deceased had gone to the kitchen to prepare tea but accidentally fell due to an epileptic episode, which caused her clothes to catch fire. 5. Opposing the bail application, the learned Government Counsel presented evidence from medical records and the statement of the deceased’s sister-in-law, Smt. Prabha Devi. It was submitted that the death of the deceased could be directly attributed to the applicant, her husband. According to Smt. Prabha Devi’s statement, the applicant, who lived in an adjacent house, frequently consumed alcohol and often physically assaulted the deceased. Despite enduring such abuse, the deceased refrained from complaining. On the night of 13.09.2021, at around 8:30 PM, the applicant allegedly subjected the deceased to a severe assault, during which her cries were audible. Though Smt. Prabha Devi attempted to intervene, but she could not reach the deceased. The following morning, at around 7:00 AM, the applicant informed her that the deceased had died due to an explosion involving a cooking gas cylinder. 6. Medical evidence presented before the Court contradicts the applicant’s claims. The records reveal multiple injuries on the deceased’s body, indicative of a brutal assault. The findings include a fractured skull, accumulated blood inside the skull, and cuts on the body. 3 Additionally, blood was found in her private parts, burn marks and blisters were observed on her body, and her hair was partially burned. There were also burn marks on her neck. 7. After considering the submissions, the Court finds the applicant’s version of the incident unconvincing. The claim that the death resulted from an LPG cylinder explosion is not supported by evidence, as no injuries or indications were found on the applicant to suggest his proximity to such an explosion. The circumstantial and medical evidence, coupled with the witness testimony, substantiates the allegations against the applicant at this stage. Any further analysis would involve delving into the merits of the case, which is not appropriate at this juncture. 8. In light of the above evidence and submissions, this Court concludes that the applicant has failed to provide sufficient grounds to justify the grant of bail. The serious nature of the allegations, coupled with the medical and circumstantial evidence, points towards the applicant's involvement in the alleged crime. The contradictions in the applicant's version of events further weaken his plea. At this stage, granting bail would not be in the interest of justice, as it may prejudice the ongoing investigation or trial. 4 9. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 10.01.2025 R.Uniyal