[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/246/2026 on 16 April, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
BA1 No. 208 of 2026
With
BA1 No. 246 of 2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Senior
Counsel, assisted by Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr.
Ananya Thapliyal, learned counsel for the
applicants.
2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for
the State.
3. Mr. Karan Anand and Mr. Abhishek
Verma, learned counsels for the complainant.
4. The applicants - Amit Sahgal and Partho
Monindernath Seel, who are in judicial custody
in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 234 of
2025, under Sections 105, 304, 333 and 352
of BNS, registered at P.S.- Rajpur, District
Dehradun, have sought their release on bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
6. In this case, an FIR was lodged on
16.12.2025 by the brother of the deceased,
wherein, it was alleged that on 15.12.2025,
the applicants entered into the house of the
deceased (complainant's brother) in the night
at about 10:00 PM and brutally assaulted his
brother with hands and legs. Since, his
brother was heart and liver patient, therefore,
he was not able to sustain the assault and due
to which, he died the next day. Subsequently,
the FIR was lodged on 16.12.2025 at about
23:56 hours i.e. after more than 24 hours of
the time of the incident. On the basis of the
investigation conducted by the Investigating
Officer, the applicants have been charged for
the offence under Sections 105, 304, 333 and
352 of BNS.
7. Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Senior
Counsel for the applicants would submit that
the applicants have been falsely implicated in
the case as no motive has been specified in
the FIR; that after the alleged incident, the
wife of the applicant had called the Police on
01:12 AM and on her call, two Policemen
(cheetah mobile) went to the house of the
deceased and thereafter, when under Section
180 of BNSS, their statements were recorded,
they have categorically submitted that when
they reached the house, the wife of the
deceased neither specified the name of any of
the applicants, nor, she told about the fact
that applicants have forcefully taken her
mobile phone, in fact, deceased stated that he
was feeling better and if need arises, he would
file a complaint the next day. Learned Senior
Counsel for the applicant would further submit
that panchnama of the deceased was
conducted the next day i.e. on 16.12.2025 at
about 08:30 AM and at the time of
panchnama also, the wife of the deceased did
not name the applicants. On this basis,
learned Senior Counsel for the applicant
submitted that applicants have been falsely
implicated in the case as FIR was lodged at
about 11:30 in the night. He has further
drawn the attention of this Court to the
statements of the eye-witness i.e. the wife of
the deceased, in which, she has admitted the
fact that her husband (deceased) was a heavy
drunker; that this fact is also corroborated by
the statement of the Constables, who went to
the house of the deceased on the night of
15.12.2025 as they have also submitted that
the deceased was in a state of heavy
intoxication. It is further submitted that even
in the post-mortem report, the cause of death
could not be ascertained and viscera was
preserved. It is also submitted that since the
deceased was suffering from liver cirrhosis
and the effect of alcohol could have led to his
death.
8. The report of the viscera is available
with the State and on instructions, learned
State Counsel would submit that no poisonous
chemical was found in the viscera report; to
the contrary, ethyl alcohol was found in the
blood of the deceased.
9. Mr. Karan Anand, learned counsel for the
complainant would submit that the applicants
were named by the wife of the deceased; that
the intention to commit murder was there as
the eye-witness had given her statement
under Section 180 of BNSS before the Police
that she had heard the other co-accused
asking the applicant no. 1 to hit the deceased
in the stomach as the deceased was a heart
and liver patient; that there was motive as
the deceased was a Journalist and he used to
post pictures and blogs.
10. Learned State Counsel, on the other
hand, would submit that the statements of the
witnesses recorded under Section 180 of
BNSS, have supported the prosecution case,
which is also corroborated by the CCTV
footage of the area; and, that as per the
inquest report, there were injuries on the
body of the deceased, which led to his death.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
12. Having considered the submissions,
under the facts and circumstances of the
case and also considering the fact that since
the chargesheet has been filed, there is no
chance of tampering with the evidences or
influencing the witnesses and, prima facie,
the case of death is also not ascertained
from the post-mortem, viscera and the
inquest report, this Court is of the view that
it is a case fit for bail and the applicants
deserve to be enlarged on bail.
13. Accordingly, the bail applications are
allowed.
14. Let the applicants 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, subject
to the following conditions:-
(a) The applicants shall not leave the country
without prior permission of the court.
(b) The applicants shall appear before the
investigating officer as and when required and
cooperate with the investigation.
(c) The applicants shall not tamper with evidence or
witnesses, either directly or indirectly and shall not
indulge in any criminal activity while on bail.
(d) The applicants shall surrender his passport, if
any, to the court or to the investigating agency, to
preclude risk of absconding.
15. The bail granted to the applicants shall
be liable to be cancelled in the event of any
violation of the aforesaid conditions or if the
applicants are found to have misused the
liberty granted to them.
(Alok Mahra J.)
16.04.2026
Ujjwal
