Jasvinder Singh ........Applicant/ vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1720 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Jasvinder Singh ........Applicant/ vs State Of Uttarakhand on 10 March, 2026

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                    Bail Application (IA) No.2 of 2026
                                In
                   Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2026
Jasvinder Singh                                 ........Applicant/Appellant
                                     Vs.
State of Uttarakhand                                  ........... Respondent
Present : Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior Advocate (through video conferencing)
           assisted by Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate for the
          applicant/appellant.
           Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Joshi, Brief
          Holder for the State.


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 22.12.2025, passed in Sessions Trial No.164 of 2018,

State of Uttarakhand vs. Angrej Singh alias Rinku and others, by

the court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District

Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the appellant has been convicted under

Sections 302 read with 34, 120-B IPC and sentenced accordingly.

The appellant seeks bail during pendency of the appeal.

2. Heard on Bail Application (IA) No.2 of 2026.

3. According to the FIR, on 23.04.2018, some named

persons had abused and threatened the brother of the informant

PW1 Mohd. Khalid, asking him to leave the Transport Nagar area.

Subsequently, on 03.05.2018 at 10:20 a.m., when PW1 Mohd.

Khalid was with his brother and others at Kichha bye-pass, two

motorcycle borne assailants, who had masked their faces, opened

indiscriminate fire, due to which, deceased Sameer Ahmed was hit

by 3-4 bullets and subsequently, he died.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant

submits that the appellant has not been named in the FIR; all the

named persons have been exonerated; the appellant was implicated

in the case based on extra-judicial confession of the co-convicts

allegedly made before PW4 Sahib Singh and PW5 Harjinder Singh,

but both PW4 Sahib Singh and PW5 Harjinder Singh had not

supported the prosecution case during trial; there is no other

evidence against the appellant; the appellant was tried to be

implicated on another link which is that the daughter of the

appellant had transferred some money to a co-convict, who

subsequently hired the shooters. It is submitted that the appellant

has nothing to do with any transaction that has been made by

Ramandeep Kaur, his daughter.

5. Learned State Counsel does not dispute these factual

narrations.

6. Learned counsel for the informant also admits these

factual narrations, but according to him, the conduct of the

appellant may be relevant while deciding this application. He would

submit that the judgment was delivered in the case on 22.12.2025,

but on that date, the appellant was not present in the court.

Thereafter, for securing his presence, steps were taken by the court

and subsequently, he surrendered.

7. In reply to it, on behalf of the appellant, it is argued

that the appellant had filed appeal in the Court seeking Exemption

From Surrendering Application No.1 of 2026, which was decided on

15.01.2026 and the appellant was directed to surrender before the

trial court forthwith and accordingly, he surrendered.

8. It is a stage of bail post conviction. Much of the

discussion at this stage is to be avoided. To the extent of

appreciating the controversy the matter may be examined with the

caveat that any observation made at this stage shall have no

bearing at any subsequent stage of the case and in as other case.

9. It is well settled law that the extra judicial confession is

a weak kind of evidence. It is admitted at Bar that, in fact, the

prosecution had initially relied upon the extra judicial confession

allegedly made by the co-convict before PW4 Sahib Singh and PW5

Harjinder Singh and it is also admitted that both PW4 Sahib Singh

and PW5 Harjinder Singh have not supported the prosecution case

at trial. Both the witnesses had stated that they had given their

statements before the court as they were asked to depose by the

police. In so far as money transaction is concerned, apparently

prosecution has not even shown that any money was transferred by

the appellant. His daughter has allegedly transferred some money.

If his daughter has transferred some money, what would be its

effect that will find deliberation during hearing of the appeal.

10. Having considered this and other attending factors, we

are of the view that it is a case in which the execution of sentence

should be suspended and the applicant/appellant be enlarged on

bail.

11. The bail application is allowed.