[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Mukesh Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 8 April, 2026
COURT'S OR JUDGES'S
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions
No
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
2026:UHC:2531
BA1 No. 53 of 2026
Mukesh Kumar ....Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsels for the Applicant.
2. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State of
Uttarakhand.
3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the
Applicant--Mukesh Kumar, aged about 26 years, S/o Shri Mukesh
Kumar, R/o House No. 1, Type-II, Mela Hospital Campus. The
Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime No.
379 of 2025, registered at Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar,
for the offences punishable under Section 103(1) of B.N.S., 2023.
4. Heard Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel for the Applicant, and
Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State. The record has
been perused.
5. As per this Court's order dated 07.04.2026, whereby a CCTV
footage said to be evidence in the present crime, recorded by a CCTV
camera and further transmitted into a pen drive, was submitted before
this Court but was not legible; a visible copy of the same through a pen
drive has now been submitted to the Court.
6. Without going into details and without forming any opinion at
this stage that may affect the merits of the case, a brief observation
made by this Court while watching the CCTV footage so claimed
shows that on 12.09.2025 at about 00:36 hours, a man dressed in a
black T-shirt and black bottoms alights from the driver's seat of a
white-coloured car. Thereafter, he opens the front passenger seat, takes
out something, and places it beneath (not clearly visible, though it
appears to be some object, but not identifiable). Thereafter, the visual
shows the person dressed in black attire entering the premises, and
later, a woman dressed in white, carrying a handbag, enters. Soon
thereafter, the woman is again shown approaching the car and entering
through the front passenger seat. Meanwhile, another person appears
from behind; it is not clear from where he emerges, though he appears
to come from the premises, stated to be a beauty parlour shop. The
woman, carrying a brown-coloured handbag, sits in the front passenger
seat. The man then takes his seat in the car and drives away.
7. The present matter relates to the murder of a young woman aged
about 35 years, and the offence against the Applicant is under Section
302 IPC.
8. The main contention so advanced by learned counsel for the
Applicant is that the matter is purely based on circumstantial evidence,
and the sole ground from the side of the prosecution is the CCTV
footage which the Court has just viewed.
9. The time of the incident is shown to be during the dark hours of
the night, and the report has been lodged by the father of the
victim/deceased.
10. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the whole case
of the prosecution relies on the CCTV footage, whereby the Applicant
is alleged to be shown entering the premises where the dead body of
the deceased was found. Learned counsel further states that there is a
witness named Manisha, who is shown to be living near the beauty
parlour, the place of incident (crime scene). She is said to have
witnessed a dispute arising between the Applicant and the deceased
and has stated that she could often hear them shouting. Learned
counsel further submits that as the CCTV footage, on which the
prosecution is relying to show the Applicant as the main person behind
the present crime, is not clear, the Applicant may be enlarged on bail.
11. Learned State Counsel, however, refutes the said submissions,
submitting that the CCTV footage clearly shows that the person alights
from a car, carries a kind of rod or stick, and leaves it at the doorstep
of the place of crime, and later exits with another woman. It is further
stated that, as per the post-mortem report, it is clear that the death was
caused precisely at the same time as indicated in the CCTV footage,
and the cause of death also relates to the deceased having succumbed
due to injuries inflicted by a blunt object. It is therefore requested that
the Applicant should not be enlarged on bail.
12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of
the said CCTV footage, which needs to be corroborated and examined
further by laboratory report, firstly, with regard to whether it is indeed
taken from the CCTV footage and also the placement of the CCTV
camera where it was installed, which be placed before the learned Trial
Court, without going into details, a brief observation while
contemplating the bail is that the CCTV footage placed before this
Court appears to be shaky and unstable and also seems to be stitched
together in two parts. Further, the person exiting the said premises is
seen wearing a different shirt; it may be possible that he changed attire.
It is not clear who the woman was, where she came from, and what
object was placed behind the wall of the said premises, thereby
creating doubt. This Court is of the view that the Applicant has made
out a case for grant of bail.
13. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed.
14. Let the Applicant be released on bail upon executing a personal
bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to
the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
15. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
08.04.2026
Shiksha
