Surendra Pal vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2265 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Surendra Pal vs State Of Uttarakhand on 23 March, 2026

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                IA No.1 of 2024 For Bail Application
                                 In
               Criminal Appeal No. 758 of 2024

Surendra Pal                                              ...... Appellant

                                    Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                  ..... Respondent

Present:
Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. 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 25.10.2024, passed in Sessions Trial

No.31 of 2020, State Vs. Prempal and another, by the court of

Third Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District

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

sentenced under Sections 201 and 120-B IPC.

2. Heard.

3. This appeal has already been admitted.

4. List in due course for final hearing.

5. Heard on First Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2024

6. The wife of the PW1, Hetram, had left him and

joined the company of the co-convict Prempal. The informant

persuaded the co-convict Prempal to release his wife, but he did

not pay heed to his requests. On 22.09.2019, the informant came

to know that his wife has been killed by the co-convict Prempal.

According to the prosecution case, after killing, co-convict

Prempal took the help of the appellant in cutting the dead body

into pieces and concealing it.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

there is no evidence against the appellant except the statement of

co-convict Prempal, and recovery of some clothes, allegedly blood

stained, at the instance of the appellant. He also submits that

except this alleged recovery, there is no evidence against the

appellant. It is a case based on circumstantial evidence. The chain

is not complete. No witness has seen the appellant either

disposing of the dead body or cutting it into pieces.

8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for

the appellant has placed reliance on the principles of law, as laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2025 SCC OnLine SC

1387,State of Rajasthan Vs. Hanuman. In the case of Hanuman

(supra), in Para 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as

hereunder:-

"7. This Court in the case of Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024) 3 SCC 481 held that mere recovery of a blood-stained weapon even bearing the same blood group of the victim would not be sufficient to prove the charge of murder."

9. Learned State Counsel does not dispute the

factual aspects, but she submits that clothes that were recovered

from the instance of the appellant had DNA of the deceased.

10. The only evidence against the appellant, and as

per even prosecution, is that the co-convict Prempal revealed the

name of the appellant, and at his instance, some blood stained

clothes were recovered, which had the DNA of the deceased.

11. 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 appellant be enlarged

on bail.

12. The bail application is allowed.

13. The sentence appealed against is suspended

during the pendency of the appeal.

14. The appellant 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.

(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 23.03.2026

Ravi Bisht