Uttarakhand High Court
Jasvinder Singh ........Applicant/ vs State Of Uttarakhand on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application (IA) No.2 of 2026
In
Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2026
Jasvinder Singh ........Applicant/Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ........... Respondent
Present : Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior Advocate (through video conferencing)
assisted by Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate for the
applicant/appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Joshi, Brief
Holder for the State.
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 22.12.2025, passed in Sessions Trial No.164 of 2018, State of Uttarakhand vs. Angrej Singh alias Rinku and others, by the court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 read with 34, 120-B IPC and sentenced accordingly. The appellant seeks bail during pendency of the appeal.
2. Heard on Bail Application (IA) No.2 of 2026.
3. According to the FIR, on 23.04.2018, some named persons had abused and threatened the brother of the informant PW1 Mohd. Khalid, asking him to leave the Transport Nagar area. Subsequently, on 03.05.2018 at 10:20 a.m., when PW1 Mohd. Khalid was with his brother and others at Kichha bye-pass, two motorcycle borne assailants, who had masked their faces, opened indiscriminate fire, due to which, deceased Sameer Ahmed was hit by 3-4 bullets and subsequently, he died.
2
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant has not been named in the FIR; all the named persons have been exonerated; the appellant was implicated in the case based on extra-judicial confession of the co-convicts allegedly made before PW4 Sahib Singh and PW5 Harjinder Singh, but both PW4 Sahib Singh and PW5 Harjinder Singh had not supported the prosecution case during trial; there is no other evidence against the appellant; the appellant was tried to be implicated on another link which is that the daughter of the appellant had transferred some money to a co-convict, who subsequently hired the shooters. It is submitted that the appellant has nothing to do with any transaction that has been made by Ramandeep Kaur, his daughter.
5. Learned State Counsel does not dispute these factual narrations.
6. Learned counsel for the informant also admits these factual narrations, but according to him, the conduct of the appellant may be relevant while deciding this application. He would submit that the judgment was delivered in the case on 22.12.2025, but on that date, the appellant was not present in the court. Thereafter, for securing his presence, steps were taken by the court and subsequently, he surrendered.
7. In reply to it, on behalf of the appellant, it is argued that the appellant had filed appeal in the Court seeking Exemption From Surrendering Application No.1 of 2026, which was decided on 3 15.01.2026 and the appellant was directed to surrender before the trial court forthwith and accordingly, he surrendered.
8. It is a stage of bail post conviction. Much of the discussion at this stage is to be avoided. To the extent of appreciating the controversy the matter may be examined with the caveat that any observation made at this stage shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the case and in as other case.
9. It is well settled law that the extra judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence. It is admitted at Bar that, in fact, the prosecution had initially relied upon the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the co-convict before PW4 Sahib Singh and PW5 Harjinder Singh and it is also admitted that both PW4 Sahib Singh and PW5 Harjinder Singh have not supported the prosecution case at trial. Both the witnesses had stated that they had given their statements before the court as they were asked to depose by the police. In so far as money transaction is concerned, apparently prosecution has not even shown that any money was transferred by the appellant. His daughter has allegedly transferred some money. If his daughter has transferred some money, what would be its effect that will find deliberation during hearing of the appeal.
10. Having considered this and other attending factors, we are of the view that it is a case in which the execution of sentence should be suspended and the applicant/appellant be enlarged on bail.
11. The bail application is allowed.
4
12. The execution of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal shall remain suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
13. Let the applicant/appellant be released on bail, during 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.
14. List along with connected matters.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 10.03.2026 Sanjay