Uttarakhand High Court
Sanjay Kandpal @ Sonu Kandpal vs State Of Uttarakhand on 21 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Mr. ALOK MAHRA
BAIL APPLICATION (I.A. NO.1 OF 2023)
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 371 of 2023
21st May, 2025
Sanjay Kandpal @ Sonu Kandpal. ...Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand. ...Respondent
(Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy
Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand)
ALOK MAHRA, J.
ORDER
This is an Appeal under Section 374(2)
Cr.P.C. against the judgment & order dated 15.06.2023
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nainital in Sessions
Trial No.28 of 2019, whereby the accused-appellant-
Sanjay Kandpal @ Sonu has been convicted under
Section 120-B read with Section 302 I.P.C. of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and has been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine
of fine of ₹ 50,000/-, and in default of payment of fine,
further simple imprisonment for a period of three
years.
2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on
01.09.2018, complainant Diwan Singh (brother of the
deceased) gave a written complaint at Police Station,
Ramnagar, stating therein that, on 01.09.2018, he
went to Ramnagar Court with his real brother Virender
Manral@Veeru and his cousin brother, Kuldeep Singh
Manral for the hearing of a case in the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Ramnagar. It is stated in the
written complaint that when complainant with his
brother Virender and Kuldeep came out of the Court,
then suddenly Sonu Kandpal said to Devendra@Bau
that Veeru is here, shoot him and, at around 01.35
p.m. Devendra@Bau shot at complainant's brother,
namely, Virendra on the left side of his chest and fled
away towards khatadi in a car, whose engine was
switched on and kept ready to depart. Thereafter,
complainant with Kuldeep Singh and also with the help
of local people took Virendra Manral to Government
Hospital, where he was declared brought dead by the
doctor. It is further stated in the complaint that
Devendra@Bau had taken money from Harish Phartiyal
for contract to kill his brother. It is further stated that
Harish Phartiyal and Sanjay Negi are involved in the
murder of his brother and both of them, under a
conspiracy, committed a daylight murder of his brother
through Devendra@Bau and Sonu Kandpal. He
requested to lodge a complaint to this effect and take
legal action in the matter.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that appellant/applicant was not charge sheeted
during investigation and he was summoned under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the trial Court. He submits that
co-accused, namely, Darshan Singh has been acquitted
by this Court vide judgment dated 25.03.2025, on the
ground that he was juvenile on the date of incident;
although, the role assigned to Darshan Singh and the
present applicant as per the F.I.R. was same. He
submits that, as per the F.I.R., the applicant was
present near Ramnagar Court on 01.09.2018; while, as
per the CCTV footage, the location of the applicant was
found at Gupta Petrol Pump, Kaladhungi on 01.09.2018
at about 12:50 p.m., at 01:35 p.m. his location was at
Mukhani Chauraha and, at 02:13 p.m., his location was
at Lamachaur Chauraha. He submits that the C.D.R.,
which has been produced, relates to mobile number of
one Sheela, however, the investigation did not
interrogate her. Learned counsel for the appellant has
drawn attention of this Court to the statement of P.W.-
4 and P.W.-5, who claimed to be the eyewitnesses of
the incident. In their testimony, both the witnesses
have mentioned the name of Devendra@Bau, Darshan
Singh and Gurpreet Singh@Gopi and not of the
appellant.
4. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General
vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted
that the plea of alibi was not taken by the appellant/
applicant during trial, therefore, he cannot take the said
benefit in the Appeal. He submits that on the basis of
testimony of the prosecution witnesses and
documentary evidence, the prosecution has proved its
case beyond reasonable doubt before the trial Court
and the learned trial Court convicted the appellant for
the aforesaid charges, based on reliable and believable
evidence, therefore, he is not entitled to bail.
5. Having gone to the tone & tenor of the
F.I.R. as well as the documentary evidence available on
record and without making any comment on the final
merits of the appeal, we are of the opinion that
appellant deserves bail at this stage. Accordingly, bail
application is allowed.
6. Let the appellant-Sanjay Kandpal @ Sonu
Kandpal be released on bail during the pendency of
appeal, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing
two sureties, each in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of Court concerned, if not required in any
other case.
7. List in due course.
(G. NARENDAR, C.J.)
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
Arpan
