2025:UHC:3231 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/28/2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Karan Anand, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Present applicant is praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 30.09.2021 bearing FIR/Case Crime No. 340 of 2021 at P.S. Banbhoolpura, District Haldwani which was lodged against unknown person for the offence punishable under Section 365 IPC. 4. The facts of the case are that a missing report was filed by the complainant with regard to missing of her daughter aged about 15 years, who left house at about 5:00 pm in the evening of 29.04.2021. This FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 0340 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Section 365 IPC. Thereafter, after lodging of the aforesaid FIR, during investigation, the I.O. collected the CCTV footages, installed in the house of Mohd. Naeem Ansari from which it was revealed that on 29.09.2021, the daughter of the complainant was seen with the co- accused Jeeshan. After arrest of Jeeshan name of the present applicant was disclosed and on interrogation the investigating agency came to know that the daughter of the complainant subjected to gang rape and thereafter killed by the present applicant and co- accused Jeeshan. Consequently, after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 302/34, 363, 376 2025:UHC:3231 (A), 376(3), 376(DA)(n), 120 B, 506 IPC read with Section 5(J)(iv)/6 of the POCSO Act, in which the cognizance was taken by the Trial Court on 03.12.2021. The present applicant and other co- accused Jeeshan both have been charge sheeted. As per the charge sheet, there are as many as 24 prosecution witnesses and one of the prosecution witness, as per the charge sheet, is Shahrukh, S/o Mohd. Hanif. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated only on the basis of disclosure of his name by co- accused Jeeshan. Apart from this, he submits that DNA of the deceased also does not match with the undergarments of the present applicant. He also submits that as per the charge sheet Shahrukh was the star witness who was the witness of last seen evidence but an application was moved for discharging the said prosecution witness by the prosecution which was allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that investigating agency deliberately does not want to examine the star witness. Apart from this, he submits that charge sheet has already been filed and there is no need of custodial interrogation and up till date 9 witnesses have been examined. 7. On the other side, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State argued that after collecting all credible evidences including the CCTV footages and CCTV footages provided by the complainant in the pen-drive, the charge sheet was filed. He submits that there is last seen evidence against the present applicant with the deceased and the present applicant was in love with the deceased. He submits that the alleged incident is a very grievous offence wherein firstly the deceased was raped 2025:UHC:3231 and thereafter murdered. 8. Apart from this, learned State Counsel submits that the trial is going on and almost 9 witnesses have been examined therefore in such a situation if the applicant is enlarged on bail there may be a possibility that he may influence the remaining witnesses. 9. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence particularly the fact that charge sheet has been filed and almost 9 witness have been examined, this Court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve for bail. 10. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 29.04.2025 Parul 2025:UHC:3231