Uttarakhand High Court
Anuj @ Neelu vs State Of Uttarakhand on 17 February, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2025)
In
Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2025
Anuj @ Neelu ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.
Devanshi Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, learned DAG for the State.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The instant appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 23.12.2024/3.1.2025, passed in Session Trial No.81 of 2019, Ishaarat Ali Vs. Anuj @ Neelu, by the court of 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Haridwar. By it, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 302 & 506 IPC. He seeks bail.
2. According to the FIR, on 11.12.2018, the appellant, along with his brother, under a conspiracy with his father, called the father of the informant to a field and shot him dead.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a false case has been lodged; that, there were two more persons named in the FIR along with the appellant, but the charge sheet was submitted only against the appellant. One of the person, Puspender, was sought to be summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but that application was rejected by the Court and the order has attained finality. He further submits that the FIR in the instant case was lodged at 11:04 p.m. on the date of the 2 incident, whereas the alleged incident took place at 3:00 p.m. He submits that, firstly, the FIR was delayed, and secondly, according to PW2 Parvez Alam, who is a Home Guard, on the date of the incident he had orally informed the police about the killing of the deceased by a boy of the village, which was entered in the police station General Diary as Report No. 35 at 5:20 p.m. on the same day. He submits that the person who killed the deceased was not named in the oral information given by PW2 Parvez Alam. Secondly, PW2 Parvez Alam had told the police at 5:20 p.m. on the day of the incident that one person had killed the deceased. He further submits that, in fact, during the inquest also, even after inquiry, the killer's name was not revealed by PW1, PW2, and PW3, as has been stated by PW5 Lokpal Parmar, particularly paragraph 6 of his statement.
4. Factually, this narration is not disputed by learned counsel for the State, but he submits that PW1, PW2, and PW3 have given an eyewitness account of the killing.
5. At the stage of bail post-conviction, much discussion is not expected. The discussion would be confined to the arguments as raised, but it shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the appeal or in any other proceedings.
6. PW5, who is the police officer, has admitted that at about 5:20 p.m. on 11.12.2018, PW2 Parvez Alam informed that a boy from the village had killed his uncle. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of his statement, he further states that, in fact, during the inquest, inquiry was made from the informant Ishaarat Ali, PW2 Parvez Alam, and others, but they did not reveal how he had died. Learned State Counsel states that, in fact, the Investigating Officer has stated the same.
3
7. It is a settled principle of law that an inquest is not a substitute for an FIR; an inquest has a limited purpose, namely to ascertain the cause of death at the first instance. However, it is stated that during the inquest, inquiry was made, and the witnesses did not reveal the name of the accused. More particularly, it is admitted by the prosecution that on the date of the incident at 5:20 p.m., PW2 Parvez Alam informed the police that a boy had killed the deceased. He did not state that two persons had killed the deceased under a conspiracy with their father, as stated in the FIR.
8. 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.
9. The bail application is allowed.
10. The sentence appealed against is suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
11. The appellant- Anuj @ Neelu 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.
12. Since the appeal has already been admitted, list in due course for final hearing.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 17.02.2026 17.02.2026 BS