2025:UHC:6555 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/551/2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj and Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel for the complainant. 4. Present applicant Robin, S/o Kamal Singh is praying for bail in relation to FIR dated 13.12.2024, bearing FIR No. 0307 of 2024, registered at P.S. Khanpur District Haridwar wherein the present applicant along with two others, namely, Akshay and Ankit Farar were implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 3(5) and 311 of BNS 2023. 5. Brief facts, of the case, are that a missing report no. 13 of 2024 was filed on 09.12.2024, with regard to missing of one Ramshankar who was missing from 08.12.2024, and, thereafter, dead body of Ramshankar (deceased), one plastic bag/ jute bag, khaki tape, three packets of tata salt were recovered on pointing out of present applicant Robin and other accused Akshay on 13.12.2024, in the bank of Banganga river and thereafter post mortem was conducted and as per the post mortem report following injuries were found on the body of the deceased Ramshankar: (i) Contusion of size 5cmx4cm over right side angle of eye. (ii) Multiple abrasion size of largest 7cmx1cm over B/L parietal area of skull. The cause of death, as per the post mortem report, could not be ascertained hence the viscera was preserved for 2025:UHC:6555 chemical analysis. The present applicant and the other co-accused were arrested on 13.12.2024, and during investigation it was found that present applicant transferred the amount UPI transaction from the mobile of the deceased on the mobile of the other persons, namely, Vinay Kumar and Praveen Kumar bearing mobile nos. 9368461711 and 9149360336 of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively, and on further interrogation with Vinay Kumar and Praveen Kumar they stated that one unknown person with muffled face wearing white hoody came and requests for cash money and on this assurance that he will refund the amount by UPI transaction, Rs. 30,000/- were paid in cash which was returned back by UPI transaction from the mobile of the deceased. After interrogation with Vinay Kumar and Praveen Kumar, CCTV footages installed in the petrol pump were analyzed and one vehicle bearing no. UP12AN 8378 KUV 100 was found and it was found that the owner of the vehicle is one Anil Kumar who was further interrogated by the I.O. who informed that one Sonu Fauji took his car on 06.12.2024 and thereafter Sonu Fauji left for his job. On this the I.O. interrogated the father of Sonu Fauji who informed that the car was took by the present applicant on 08.12.2024. 6. On the previous date it was argued by Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the applicant that in order to complete the chain, the investigating officer has not made any attempt to enquire about the conduct of Vinay Kukmar and Praveen Kumar and also the conduct of the owner of the vehicle Anil Kumar, and submits that entire investigation is faulty and the recovery, as shown on the pointing out of the present applicant is false, since, at the time when the recovery was shown the applicant was in police custody. He further argued that the investigation appears to 2025:UHC:6555 be faulty which is evident from the fact that Sonu Fauji was shown to be left to join fauj, though, as per the statement of Anil Kumar, the owner of the vehicle, as well as father of Sonu Fauji, he was in the village where the incident was happened. He submits that merely on this basis that Sonu Fauji left for the job, the applicant has been charge sheeted, though, the conduct of Sonu Fauji also appears to be doubtful. Apart from this, he submits that even the conduct of Anil Kumar is also doubtful in whose car, as per the prosecution, dead body of the deceased was brought but he is not made an accused. Finally, he concluded his arguments by submitting that the entire investigation is faulty as there is no link evidence, and, as such, the applicant is innocent and he is languishing in jail since 13.12.2024, and in this particular case charge sheet has already been filed on 11.03.2025, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant and he deserves for bail. He also submits that recovery of car appears to be doubtful since, as per the statement of Anil Kumar, the car returned back on 10.12.2024 whereas the car is shown to be recovered on the pointing out of the applicant on 14.12.2024, and there is no any such evidence when again Anil Kumar handed over the car to the applicant. 7. On the other side, Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that there are link evidence and after collecting all credible evidence charge sheet has been filed and there are CCTV footages and there is recovery of dead body on pointing out of the applicant. There are also evidence of money transaction through UPI from the mobile of the deceased to two persons who are serving in the petrol pump and the mobile through which the 2025:UHC:6555 UPI transaction was done was recovered from the present applicant. He also pointed out that the present applicant another co-accused also confessed their guilt. 8. Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel who appears for the complainant fairly submits that to some extent the investigation is faulty and for that reason he has filed writ petition bearing WPCRL No. 758 of 2025 for transferring the investigation to CBI in which notices have been issued on 18.07.2025. He further argued that whatever be the evidence has been collected by the investigating agency against the present applicant clearly establishes that the applicant is involved in commission of this crime, therefore, even if there is a lapse on the part of the investigating agency, at this juncture when the Court is considering the bail application this aspect cannot be looked into. He also submits that the deceased was brutally murdered by the applicant in association with the co-accused and for commission of this crime there was strong motive. 9. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire records including the FIR, charge sheet as well as post mortem report and the recovery memo, this Court is of the view that since after collecting all credible evidence charge sheet has been filed against the present applicant and the other co-accused, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve for bail. 10. Accordingly bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 24.07.2025 Parul 2025:UHC:6555