UKHC010137962026 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No. 1359 of 2026 05 August, 2026 Rinku Sharma Alias Pandit Ji --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. The instant bail application is moved on behalf of Rinku Sharma @ Pandit Ji S/o Shri Mukesh Sharma for seeking regular bail in reference to First Information Report dated 13.10.2020 bearing FIR No. 626 of 2020 P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar lodged by one Manoj Dhami implicating five unknown persons for the offences punishable under section 302 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, one Manoj Dhami S/o Shri Prem Singh Dhami lodged a First Information Report on 13.10.2020 registered as Case Crime No. 0626 of 2020 at P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar alleging therein that he is resident of Ward No. 40 Kichha Road Rudrapur of District Udham Singh Nagar and on 12.10.2020 at about 8:45 AM a suspicious I-20 Car No. UK04AB4343 in white colour with black roof was parked near his house inside of which five persons were sitting and one person was sitting in front seat, two persons came out from the car asked his mother to open the door when his mother Smt. 1 UKHC010137962026 Janki Devi opened the door then those persons called his brother Prakash Dhami, who was Cooperator of Ward No. 15 of Dudhiya Nagar for taking his signature on some paper of Nagar Nigam. On such, the mother of informant called his brother Prakash Dhami and when his brother Prakash Dhami came out then they opened fire and in between one person, who was sitting in rear seat also came out from Car and he also fired and also abused and entire incident was saw by him as well as by his mother and one Ashish Yadav, who was present at that time in the house and after causing fire they all ran away in I-20 Car. It is further alleged that after this incident the informant rushed to the District Hospital Rudrapur along with his injured brother where the Doctors declared him dead and after cremation the wife of the deceased also feel some pain in her stomach since she was pregnant due to which immediately no FIR was lodged. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and is not named in the FIR as the FIR has been lodged against five unknown persons. He further submits that in this incident the applicant was arrested on 08.04.2026 and since then he is languishing in jail and is in judicial custody since last 115 days. He also submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the trial is going on and as per the prosecution there are in total 36 prosecution witnesses but uptill date only 11 prosecution witnesses have been examined. He also submits that as per the FIR itself the alleged eye witnesses seen the entire incident as well as the assailants but no attempt was made by the I.O. while conducting the investigation to identify the actual assailants and the charge- sheet has been filed only on the basis of the statement of one Madhvi Gangwar whose statements were recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C., who was using two SIMS in two Mobile 2 UKHC010137962026 numbers which were in the name of other persons. He further submits that no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant and the applicant is chargesheeted only on the basis of confessional statement and there is no evidence which connect the applicant with the incident. 4. He further submits that while conducting the investigation the Investigating Officer have not completed the chain of circumstances and there is no recovery of alleged vehicle and there is also no concrete or reliable evidence to establish how and in what manner the applicant is involved in this incident. He also submits that the deceased Prakash Dhami was having long criminal history and is a political person and the present applicant was never been associated with him either politically or in any other manner and, as such, there is no any intention or motive to commit the crime. He also submits that the investigation is also faulty since there is no TIP (Test Identification Parade). 5. Learned counsel further submits that in Session Trial No. 44 of 2021 the prosecution produced three witnesses i.e. PW1, PW2 and PW3 and on close scrutiny of their chief as well as cross-examination one fact came into the light that the deceased was having criminal antecedent and having rivalry with one Rajesh Gangwar and there is no any linked evidence, which connect the applicant with the said incident. He also submits that Madhvi Gangwar one of the prosecution was examined as PW11 and on bare perusal of her statement it is very clear that she has not supported the case of the prosecution. He also submits that except the version of one Madhvi Gangwar with regard to the identification and disclosure of the name of the present applicant there is no other credible and concrete 3 UKHC010137962026 evidence available with the prosecution. He submits that the recovery as shown on pointing out of the present applicant is nothing but planted one. 6. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the other co-accused namely Rajesh Gangwar, Rohit Rathor @ Billu, Annu Gangwar @ Gulab Singh @ Manoj Kumar, Jai Kumar @ Jaika, Dinesh Sharma, Vinay Verma @ Bantu, Atul Rathore and Rajkumar @ Bittu @ Abhishek have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench by different orders. 7. Per contra, Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A., vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that the manner in which this crime was committed in the morning at about 8:45 PM by entering into the house of deceased is organized in a well planned manner and merely on the ground that the co-accused have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench the applicant does not deserve for bail particularly when there is no deliberations with regard to gravity of offence. 8. He also submits that the presence of the present applicant at the time of incident was also corroborated with the statement of the other co-accused. 9. Apart from this, on instructions, learned A.G.A. submits that the presence of the applicant and other co-accused who have been chargesheeted also find at the place of the incident as per the CDR location and investigation reveals that all of them also conspired to organize the crime one day prior to the incident since their location all were found near Tower. 10. Learned A.G.A. also pointed out that after the incident the applicant was absconded and a proceeding under sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. was also initiated and he was arrested after six 4 UKHC010137962026 years of the incident, therefore ,the applicant also does not deserve for bail on account of his past conduct. 11. Apart from this, he submits that the applicant have a criminal antecedent of 3 to 4 cases, which he himself has disclosed in the affidavit and one case relates of Case Crime No. 134 of 2017 which pertains to section 382 of Cr.P.C., another case relating to Case Crime No. 125 of 2017 which pertains to the offence punishable under sections 307, 294 and 34 of IPC; and next one relating to Case Crime No. 285 of 2025 which pertains to section 25 and 27 of Arms Act; another one relating to Case Crime No. 138 of 2017 which pertains to offence punishable under sections 399, 400 and 402 of IPC and section 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 12. Learned A.G.A. concluded his argument by submitting that the applicant being absconder for six years is now facing trial for the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC r/w section 120 B of IPC with other co-accused and the incident was a cold blooded murder in the house of the deceased and there are sufficient evidences, which linked the applicant with the commission of crime in association with the other co-accused and if at this stage the applicant who have a criminal antecedent and was absconder for six year is enlarged on bail there are all possibilities that he will frustrate the ongoing trial, which is at the crucial stage and merely on the ground that the other co- accused have been granted bail, the applicant does not deserve for bail. 13. 13. After hearing the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the applicant was admittedly absconder for six years and now has been arrested on 08.04.2026 and the trial is also at a crucial stage and he is also 5 UKHC010137962026 having a criminal antecedent, this court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve for bail. 14. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 05.08.2026 PR 6