Mohd. Nafees @ Bablu vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2076 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Mohd. Nafees @ Bablu vs State Of Uttarakhand on 18 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. 25 of 2025

Mohd. Nafees @ Bablu                                  ...... Appellant

                                  Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                 ......Respondent


Presence:
Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Nipush
Mola Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned AGA 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 21.12.2024, passed in Session Trial No.91 of 2019, State vs.

Mohd. Nafees @ Bablu and others, by the court of learned Ist

Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

By it, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302/34 read

with Section 120B and 201 of IPC and sentenced accordingly. The

appellant seeks bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties on Bail Application

(IA No.1 of 2025).

3. The deceased, Vinod Kumar, left his house for Agra on

14.01.2019 at 10:00 PM. His dead body was found near Kunda

Petrol Pump.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that

there is no evidence against the appellant. Merely a motive has been

attributed to the appellant, alleging illicit relations with the wife of

the deceased, which is also not established. The dead body was

found near a petrol pump on the road. The inquest witness, PW8

S.I. Madan Singh Bisht, who conducted the inquest, had opined

that the cause of death might be due to an accident. PW5 Dr. P.K.

Sinha, who conducted the postmortem, also did not state how the

injuries were caused. He simply stated that the cause of death was

asphyxia as a result of blood being filled in the respiratory tract.

Therefore, the case is fit for bail.

5 Learned State Counsel submits that there was a motive,

namely illicit relations with the wife of the deceased, and a further

motive that the appellant is the nominee of the life insurance policy.

He further submits that the phone location of the appellant and

others was found near the place of the incident. The appellant killed

the deceased in the house of deceased, where blood was found;

thereafter, the dead body was thrown on the roadside.

6. 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.

7. The case is based on circumstantial evidence; what is

being argued is that there was a strong motive along with it the

phone location is being established as the circumstances to connect

the appellant. Admittedly, there is no recovery from the appellant.

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 execution of sentence appealed against is suspended

during the pendency of the appeal.

11. The appellant - Mohd. Nafees @ Bablu 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. List this case in due course along with connected matters.

(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 18.03.2026 18.03.2026 BS