Uttarakhand High Court
Ram Kishore @ Muddar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 22 September, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2022)
In
Criminal Appeal No. 378 of 2022
Ram Kishore @ Muddar ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
With
Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2022)
In
Criminal Appeal No. 359 of 2022
Indra Mohan ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
With
Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2022)
In
Criminal Appeal No. 374 of 2022
Indra Mohan ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
With
Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2022)
In
Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 2022
Vishal ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Presence:
Mr. R.S. Sammal, Mr. S.R.S. Gill and Ms. Sarita Bisht, learned
counsel for the appellants.
Mr. B.N. Maulekhi, learned DAG for the State.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the informant.
2
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Since these criminal appeals arise from a common
judgment, therefore, bail applications preferred in these criminal
appeals are being decided by this common order.
2. Appellants/applicants- Ram Kishore @ Muddar, Indra
Mohan and Vishal have preferred these appeals against common
judgment and order dated 01.08.2022/02.08.2022, passed in
Sessions Trial Nos.290 & 291 of 2013, State Vs. Ram Kishore @
Muddar and others and Sessions Trial No. 289 of 2013, State Vs.
Indra Mohan, by the court of First Additional Sessions Judge,
Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the appellants have been convicted and
sentenced under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 307/149, 506, 504
IPC and Sections 25 & 4/25 of the Arms Act. They seek bail.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. According to the prosecution, on 13.02.2013 at 9:00 pm,
the appellant/applicant along with other persons fired and stabbed
deceased Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju, due to which he died.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that
the prosecution case is false. Alleged incident took place at 9:00 pm
on 13.02.2013, whereas the FIR was lodged at 7:30 am on the next
date at Police Station, which is half kilometer away from the place of
incident. He submits that, in fact, the deceased was a history
sheeter, he may have multiple enmities and he might have been
killed by some other persons, but the appellants have falsely been
implicated. It is argued earlier appellant-Ram Kishore had filed an
FIR against the deceased under Section 307 IPC, based on this
enmity, the appellant- Ram Kishore and others have been falsely
implicated in the case.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that, after
the incident, it is PW-7 Sudesh, who took the deceased at the
hospital, he was not accompanied by any family members; his
statement reveals that there was no family member at the place of
incident where deceased was lying on the ground and was suffering
due to agony and pain caused by the gunshot injuries. When the
deceased was taken to hospital, the hospital authorities sent an
information to the Police Station, in which the assailants were not
named. Thereafter, the Police Authorities and the Administrative
authorities wanted the postmortem to be conducted on the same
day, therefore, District Magistrate permitted the postmortem to be
conducted in the night and, in that order also, the assailants were
not named, it was written that some unknown persons have killed
the deceased. He would submit that had PW1-Smt. Chandra Mukhi
(the mother of the deceased) PW2- Smt. Meera (the wife of the
deceased) and PW3 Bhupendra Gupta been present at the place of
incident, immediately they would have rushed the deceased to
hospital and there would have been no mention of unknown
assailants in the memo etc. Even, it is argued that no one was
agreeable to be the Panch of inquest, therefore, the mother and the
wife of the deceased were also Panch witness of the inquest. Learned
counsel for the appellants referred to the various documents to
substantiate their arguments. It is also submitted that the
appellants were on bail during trial and they never misused the bail.
7. Learned State Counsel would submit that the co-convict
Sanjay Chauhan's bail application has already been rejected. He
submits that statements of PW1-Smt. Chandra Mukhi, PW2- Smt.
Meera and PW3 Bhupendra Gupta support the prosecution case and
prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The
appellants are named in the FIR. He submits that PW1-Smt.
Chandra Mukhi has stated that PW7 Sudesh @ Anna took the
deceased to hospital in his motorcycle and this witness and others
followed thereafter. He admits that the appellants were on bail
during trial and they have never misused the bail.
8. It is the stage of bail in appeal. The appellants do not have
the benefit of presumption of innocence, because they are convict.
Greater scrutiny of evidence at this stage is not material. One fact in
favour of the appellants is that they were on bail during trial and
they never misused the bail.
9. PW7-Sudesh @ Anna is the person, who took the deceased
to hospital. According to him, he saw the deceased lying on the
ground suffering in the agony, due to gunshot injuries. He took
deceased in his motorcycle with the help of one Narendra and, till
then, there was none to speak as to who had killed the deceased.
There is General Dairy entry in the Police Station, which records
that, from the hospital, a memo was received at the Police Station
that some unknown persons have killed the deceased. There are
other communications also in the intervening night of
13/14.02.2013 of District Magistrate permitting for postmortem, but
in those communications also, assailants are recorded unknown.
Under the context of these materials, the statements of PW1, PW2
and PW3 shall be scrutinized in the instant appeals, but having
considered the entirety of facts and without expressing any opinion
on merits, we are of the view that it is a case in which the execution
of sentence should be suspended and the appellants be enlarged on
bail.
10. The bail applications are allowed.
11. The sentence appealed against is suspended during the
pendency of the appeals.
12. The appellants- Ram Kishore @ Muddar, Indra Mohan and
Vishal be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal on their
executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties by
each one of them, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the
court concerned.
13. Since the appeals have already been admitted, list in due
course for final hearing.
(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
22.09.2025 22.09.2025
BS
