[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Sukhwinder Singh Alias Chinder vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 19 December, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
IA No.1 of 2025 For Bail Application
In
Criminal Appeal No. 674 of 2025
Sukhwinder Singh alias Chinder ......Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ..... Respondents
IA No.1 of 2025 For Bail Application
In
Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2025
Balvinder Singh Chandel ......Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ..... Respondents
IA No.1 of 2025 For Bail Application
In
Criminal Appeal No. 682 of 2025
Satnam Singh alias Satta ......Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ..... Respondents
Present:
Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Rajendra Singh Negi, Advocate for the informant.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Since all these criminal appeals arise from the
same FIR, they are heard together and are being decided by this
common judgment.
2. The instant appeals have been preferred against
order dated 06.11.2025, passed by the Sessions Judge, Udham
Singh Nagar, in Bail Application No. 1265 of 2025, Sukhvinder
Singh alias Chindar and Others Vs. State, by which the bail
application of the appellants has been rejected in FIR No.225 of
2025, under Sections 103(1), 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, and Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Kunda,
District Udham Singh Nagar.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
3. According to the FIR, the deceased was supporting
one Gurtaj Singh Bhullar in BDC election. The opponent Pragat
Singh Pannu and his father Kashmir Singh were unhappy with it.
On 19.07.2025, in the morning at about 7:30 a.m., the deceased
telephoned his brother Sanjay and told him that Pragat Singh
Pannu and Kashmir Singh have called him at their residence. The
brother of the deceased, Sanjay, denied the deceased to go there,
but the deceased visited them. Subsequently, one Harkeval Singh
told it to the wife of the deceased and his brother Sanjay that
Rahul had an attack in the house of Kashmir Singh. When Sanjay
Singh reached there, he found that the deceased Rahul was lying
on a sofa in the house of Kashmir Singh and Pragat Singh Pannu.
Blood was oozing out from his mouth, and all the articles were
spread around. When the deceased was taken to hospital, he died.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
the appellants have been falsely implicated; the named accused
have not been arrested by the Investigating Officer; the appellants
were supporting Gurtaj Singh Bhullar, to whom the deceased was
also supporting. Therefore, the appellants have no occasion to kill
him; there is no evidence against the appellants; the inquest
reveals that the deceased was found in an unconscious state in
the house of Kashmir Singh and Pragat Singh Pannu, when blood
was oozing out from his mouth; the appellants have no role.
5. Learned State Counsel submits that appellants
Satnam Singh alias Satta and Sukhvinder Singh alias Chinder
run a Nasha Mukti Kendra. On 19.07.2025, they visited the Nasha
Mukti Kendra at 6:30 a.m. and closed the CCTV cameras.
Thereafter, the deceased, along with the appellant Balvinder Singh
Chandel also entered there. From there, the deceased made a call
to his brother Sanjay, and, subsequently, he was found dead. He
submits that the Doctor has opined that, perhaps, it is the case of
death was poison.
6. Learned counsel for the informant submits that
the informant has only lodged FIR against Kashmir Singh and
Pragat Singh Pannu.
7. Admittedly, there has been no injury on the
person of the deceased. The post mortem report also does not
indicate any injury; the cause of death could not be ascertained
and viscera preserved. The report viscera is yet to be received.
8. The deceased was found in unconscious state in
the house of Kashmir Singh and Pragat Singh Pannu, and when
he was taken to hospital, he was declared brought dead.
9. Merely because the appellants had visited the
Nasha Mukti Kendra run by the appellants Satnam Singh alias
Satta and Sukhvinder Singh alias Chinder, at this stage, they may
not be detained. It is a case fit for bail.
10. Therefore, while allowing the appeals, the
appellants are entitled to be released on bail.
11. The appeals are allowed.
12. Let the appellants be released on bail on their
executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties,
each of the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of
the court concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
19.12.2025
Ravi Bisht
