[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Dilshad vs State Of Uttarakhand on 10 March, 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. 203 of 2025
Dilshad ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Presence:
Ms. Abhilasha Tomar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned DAG along with Mr. Rakesh Negi,
learned 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 03.02.2025, passed in Session Trial No.241 of 2013, State vs.
Dilshad, by the court of learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge,
Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the appellant has been convicted under
Section 302 of IPC and sentenced accordingly. The appellant seeks
bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. On 17th September 2011, at noon, the dead body of a
woman was found in a sugarcane field. According to the prosecution
case, the appellant was live-in relationship with the deceased,
Taslima @ Shimi, and he killed her.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are
essentially three witnesses who have stated against the appellant.
They are PW12 D.L. Sharma, PW13 Hamid Ali and PW21 Gulshan
Singh, but their statements are contradictory and they are chance
witnesses. It is a case based on circumstantial evidence but the
chain is not complete. There is no forensic evidence. Even the
prosecution has not established any motive.
5. It is argued that according to PW12, they were going
towards Swar, Rampur, whereas according to PW13, they were going
towards Kelakhera. It is further argued that Kelakhera and Swar,
Rampur are at opposite directions from the place of incident. It is
also argued that, on the one hand, PW12 and PW13 state that they
had seen a man and a woman near the place of incident just before
the incident, whereas according to PW21, just before the incident,
he had seen two women with a man.
6. Learned State counsel submits that a person could reach
Swar, Rampur from Kelakhera also, though she admits that
Kelakhera and Swar, Rampur are at opposite directions and the
place of incident lies somewhere in between them. She submits that,
in fact, it is the appellant who had illicit relation with the deceased
and he killed her.
7. It is a post-conviction bail matter. Much of the discussion,
at this stage, is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated
with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have
no bearing at any subsequent stage of the proceedings and in any
other matter.
8. It is a case based on circumstantial evidence. PW12 states
that he, along with PW13, was going towards Swar, Rampur on the
date of the incident and they spotted a man and a woman walking
towards a sugarcane field, whereas PW13 states that he was going
along with PW12 towards Kelakhera. Admittedly, Kelakhera and
Swar, Rampur are at opposite directions. Where were these
witnesses essentially going on the date of the incident?
9. PW13 states that both the man and the woman whom
they spotted were sitting near a culvert. They were not walking
towards the sugarcane field as stated by PW12. PW21 gives another
version. According to him, he had spotted two women and a man
sitting on a culvert on the date of the incident. There is no forensic
report. These are all chance witnesses; their credibility would
require deeper scrutiny during the hearing of the appeal.
10. 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.
11. The bail application is allowed.
12. The execution of sentence appealed against is suspended
during the pendency of the appeal.
13. The appellant - Dilshad 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.
14. List this case in due course.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
10.03.2026 10.03.2026
BS
