Uttarakhand High Court
Manga @ Mohit vs State Of Uttarakhand on 17 February, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2023
In
Criminal Appeal No.587 of 2023
Manga @ Mohit ........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr. Kamlesh Budhlakoti, Advocates
for the appellant.
Mr. V.S. Rawat, AGA for the State.
Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for the informant.
Coram:Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah,J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.08.2023, passed in Sessions Trial No.117 of 2017, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Manoj and others, by the court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar. By it, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302, 120-B read with Section 302, 201 IPC and sentenced accordingly. The appellant seeks bail in this appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the prosecution, on 25.02.2017, the dead body of the deceased was found at a deserted place. It was revealed that a day before, the deceased had revealed it to the P.W.1 that he was called by one Manoj (the appellant). Mr. Manoj had to re-pay the loan, which he had taken from the deceased. It is further prosecution case that on 24.02.2017, the appellant and others were seen in the company of deceased.
2
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there were four accused persons, one of whom was child in conflict with law, who has already been acquitted by the Board and two accused were tried along with the appellant, but on identical evidence, they have been acquitted and the appellant has been convicted without any evidence, as such. He submits that according to the prosecution case, a knife was allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant. But, it was recovered from an open place, and it does not connect the appellant with the offence.
5. Learned State Counsel submits that PW2, Ram Kishan, has seen the appellant in the company of deceased along with one Bhola and a knife was recovered at the instance of the appellant. But he admits that knife was recovered from an open place. He admits that the last seen evidence was against one Bhola also, who was a child in conflict with law and he has already been acquitted.
6. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case in which the execution of sentence should be suspended and the appellant be enlarged on bail.
7. The bail application is allowed.
8. The execution of sentence appealed against is suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
9. The appellant be released on bail, during the pendency of the appeal, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
10. List in due course.
1 (Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 17.02.2026 17.02.2026 RS