[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Dinesh Chandra Nainwal vs State Of Uttarakhand on 19 March, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Second Bail Application No.03 of 2026
Dinesh Chandra Nainwal ........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Umakant Sharma, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Lalit
Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Siddharth Bisht, A.G.A. for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant is in judicial custody in Sessions Trial No. 6 of
2025, Case Crime No. 179 of 2024, under Section 103 (1) read with 3
(5) of the Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Mukhani,
District Nainital. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. This is second bail application of the applicant. His first
bail application was withdrawn on 12.12.2025.
4. According to the FIR, on 07.10.2024 at 10:50 p.m. the
deceased alongwith his friends was watching Ramlila in Haldwani. At
that time, the applicant in the presence of all the friends and others
opened fire on the deceased, due to which he died. The FIR records that
thereafter, the applicant ran away from the spot after threatening the
persons present there. FIR itself records that at the time of incident,
there were many friends and family members present with the
deceased.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR is
delayed; the incident allegedly took place at 10:50 p.m. on 07.10.2024,
whereas the FIR was lodged on 08.10.2024 at about 6:00 p.m. He
submits that there is no explanation to delay. It is also argued that had
the witnesses been present at the spot, who allegedly took the deceased
to the hospital, their clothes would have been stained with blood. But,
no such blood stained clothes of the witnesses or PW6 Kalpana
Nainwal, who happened to be the wife of the deceased were recovered by
the Investigating Officer. He submits that it makes out the case for bail.
He refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of
State Rep. By Inspector of Police, T.N. Vs. Manikandan and others,
2015 SCC OnLine SC 398. In its order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
records that "it further appears from the evidence of PW-12 that
soon after the occurrence, she had placed the body of her husband
on her lap. But, interestingly, no blood-stained sari was recovered
from PW-12, which creates doubt as to the very presence of PW-12
at the time and place of the said occurrence."
6. Learned counsel also raised the following points in his
submission:-
(i) FIR records that there was a property dispute
between the deceased and the applicant, whereas
PW6 Kalpana Nainwal, the informant, in para 30 of
her statement, has categorically stated that there was
no litigation pending between them.
(ii) It is argued that soon after the incident, when the
police was informed at the Police Station, GD entry
records that some person has been killed, but there
was no detail as to who killed whom? It is argued
that had the witnesses been present at the spot, they
would have conveyed it.
(iii) Had the witnesses been present, they would have
immediately inform as to what had happened, but
nobody has opened his mouth, till the inquest, which
was conducted on 08.10.2024 at 8:50 a.m.
7. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that
there are eyewitnesses to the incident. It is a case of direct evidence.
The GD entries, which have been referred by learned counsel for the
appellant confirms the prosecution case.
8. Learned counsel for the informant submits that out of six
witnesses, some of them have seen the applicant firing at the deceased
and some have seen him running away from the place of incident. There
are six witnesses whose evidence was referred to during the course of
arguments. They are namely, PW1 Manish Joshi, PW2 Pradeep
Nainwal, PW3 Deepak Joshi, PW5 Neeraj Bisht and PW6 Kalpana
Nainwal, the informant.
9. In addition to it, learned counsel for the informant also
refers to the record to show that, in fact, the Investigating Officer, soon
after the incident, recovered CCTV footages of the vicinity, which
confirms that the applicant was running away from the place of incident
while holding pistol in his hand. He also submits that the family was in
great shock, therefore, delay occurred in filing the FIR. Mere delay in
filing the FIR cannot be a ground for granting him bail. Insofar as the
delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the only earning member had
died. Therefore, delay occurred.
10. Responding to the CCTV footages, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that CCTV footages have yet not been confirmed by
the Forensic Science Laboratory ("FSL") report. The CCTV footages were
sent to the FSL, Dehradun, but due to the non availability of software,
they could not be examined and thereafter, they were sent to FSL,
Himachal Pradesh. There also the software was not available. But, he
submits that till date, it has not been confirmed.
11. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion 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 trial or in any other proceedings.
12. Delay in all cases may not be fatal in criminal cases. It has
to be tested under the facts and circumstances of each case. In the
instant case, it is true that FIR was lodged on 18.10.2024, but what
would be its effect, perhaps, it would find deliberation during trial.
13. There are eyewitnesses of the incident. It is a case of killing
of a person in the presence of many other persons. The Investigating
Officer records about the CCTV footages as to how the applicant was
seen running from the place of incident holding a country-made pistol.
14. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no
ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail
application deserves to be rejected.
15. The bail application is rejected.
(Ravindra Maithani,)
19.03.2026
Jitendra
