Manga @ Mohit vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1117 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Manga @ Mohit vs State Of Uttarakhand on 17 February, 2026

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                   Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2023
                                   In
                 Criminal Appeal No.587 of 2023


Manga @ Mohit                                           ........Appellant

                                 Versus

State of Uttarakhand                               ........Respondent
Present:-

            Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr. Kamlesh Budhlakoti, Advocates
            for the appellant.
             Mr. V.S. Rawat, AGA for the State.
            Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for the informant.

Coram:Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah,J.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and order

dated 21.08.2023, passed in Sessions Trial No.117 of 2017, State of

Uttarakhand Vs. Manoj and others, by the court of Second Additional

Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar. By it, the appellant has

been convicted under Sections 302, 120-B read with Section 302, 201

IPC and sentenced accordingly. The appellant seeks bail in this

appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. According to the prosecution, on 25.02.2017, the dead

body of the deceased was found at a deserted place. It was revealed

that a day before, the deceased had revealed it to the P.W.1 that he

was called by one Manoj (the appellant). Mr. Manoj had to re-pay the

loan, which he had taken from the deceased. It is further prosecution

case that on 24.02.2017, the appellant and others were seen in the

company of deceased.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there were

four accused persons, one of whom was child in conflict with law, who

has already been acquitted by the Board and two accused were tried

along with the appellant, but on identical evidence, they have been

acquitted and the appellant has been convicted without any evidence,

as such. He submits that according to the prosecution case, a knife

was allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant. But, it was

recovered from an open place, and it does not connect the appellant

with the offence.

5. Learned State Counsel submits that PW2, Ram Kishan,

has seen the appellant in the company of deceased along with one

Bhola and a knife was recovered at the instance of the appellant. But

he admits that knife was recovered from an open place. He admits that

the last seen evidence was against one Bhola also, who was a child in

conflict with law and he has already been acquitted.

6. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a

case in which the execution of sentence should be suspended and the

appellant be enlarged on bail.

7. The bail application is allowed.

8. The execution of sentence appealed against is suspended

during the pendency of the appeal.

9. The appellant be released on bail, during the pendency of

the appeal, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two

reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court

concerned.

10. List in due course.

1 (Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

17.02.2026 17.02.2026 RS