[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Anuj @ Neelu vs State Of Uttarakhand on 17 February, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2025)
In
Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2025
Anuj @ Neelu ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.
Devanshi Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, learned DAG for the State.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The instant appeal has been preferred against judgment
and order dated 23.12.2024/3.1.2025, passed in Session Trial No.81
of 2019, Ishaarat Ali Vs. Anuj @ Neelu, by the court of 3rd Addl.
Sessions Judge, Haridwar. By it, the appellant has been convicted
and sentenced under Sections 302 & 506 IPC. He seeks bail.
2. According to the FIR, on 11.12.2018, the appellant, along
with his brother, under a conspiracy with his father, called the
father of the informant to a field and shot him dead.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that a false case
has been lodged; that, there were two more persons named in the
FIR along with the appellant, but the charge sheet was submitted
only against the appellant. One of the person, Puspender, was
sought to be summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, but that application was rejected by the Court and
the order has attained finality. He further submits that the FIR in
the instant case was lodged at 11:04 p.m. on the date of the
incident, whereas the alleged incident took place at 3:00 p.m. He
submits that, firstly, the FIR was delayed, and secondly, according to
PW2 Parvez Alam, who is a Home Guard, on the date of the incident
he had orally informed the police about the killing of the deceased by
a boy of the village, which was entered in the police station General
Diary as Report No. 35 at 5:20 p.m. on the same day. He submits
that the person who killed the deceased was not named in the oral
information given by PW2 Parvez Alam. Secondly, PW2 Parvez Alam
had told the police at 5:20 p.m. on the day of the incident that one
person had killed the deceased. He further submits that, in fact,
during the inquest also, even after inquiry, the killer's name was not
revealed by PW1, PW2, and PW3, as has been stated by PW5 Lokpal
Parmar, particularly paragraph 6 of his statement.
4. Factually, this narration is not disputed by learned
counsel for the State, but he submits that PW1, PW2, and PW3 have
given an eyewitness account of the killing.
5. At the stage of bail post-conviction, much discussion is not
expected. The discussion would be confined to the arguments as
raised, but it shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the
appeal or in any other proceedings.
6. PW5, who is the police officer, has admitted that at about
5:20 p.m. on 11.12.2018, PW2 Parvez Alam informed that a boy from
the village had killed his uncle. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of his
statement, he further states that, in fact, during the inquest, inquiry
was made from the informant Ishaarat Ali, PW2 Parvez Alam, and
others, but they did not reveal how he had died. Learned State
Counsel states that, in fact, the Investigating Officer has stated the
same.
7. It is a settled principle of law that an inquest is not a
substitute for an FIR; an inquest has a limited purpose, namely to
ascertain the cause of death at the first instance. However, it is
stated that during the inquest, inquiry was made, and the witnesses
did not reveal the name of the accused. More particularly, it is
admitted by the prosecution that on the date of the incident at 5:20
p.m., PW2 Parvez Alam informed the police that a boy had killed the
deceased. He did not state that two persons had killed the deceased
under a conspiracy with their father, as stated in the FIR.
8. 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.
9. The bail application is allowed.
10. The sentence appealed against is suspended during the
pendency of the appeal.
11. The appellant- Anuj @ Neelu 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.
12. Since the appeal has already been admitted, list in due
course for final hearing.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
17.02.2026 17.02.2026
BS
