[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Arman vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 March, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application No. 1 of 2025
In
Criminal Appeal No.707 of 2025
Arman ......Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Ms. Divya Jain, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.
Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate for the informant.
With
Bail Application No. 1 of 2025
And
Bail Application No. 2 of 2025
In
Criminal Appeal No.728 of 2025
Mandeep Alias Manav and others ......Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Ms. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms.
Nipush Mola Joshi, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. 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)
Both these appeals are preferred against the common
judgment and order dated 22.11.2025, passed in Sessions Trial No.
179 of 2022, State Vs. Manavdeep @ Manav, by the court of 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. By
it, the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 IPC and
sentenced accordingly. They seek bail during the pendency of the
appeals.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. These are admitted appeals.
4. LCR has already been received.
5. List in due course.
Heard on Bail Applications
6. According to the FIR, on 25.05.2022, the appellants armed
with lathi and danda assaulted the deceased Vishal Kamboj, due to
which, he sustained multiple injuries and died. He was taken to
hospital. Thereafter, FIR was lodged.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant
Shahrukh and Mandeep @ Manav submits that, in fact, there is no
eyewitness in the case; had PW1 Ramesh Chand and PW2 Narayan
Chand been present at the spot, they would have taken the deceased to
the hospital, but the deceased was taken by some other person, as he
was not named when brought to the hospital. She also raised the
following points in her submissions:-
(i) One Anmol Hospital is at the same place to place of
incident, but the deceased was not taken to Anmol
Hospital for his treatment, instead he was taken to
Bazpur. It is argued that it appears that the
deceased met with an accident at some other place
and due to enmity the appellants have been named.
(ii) The alleged recovery of danda is without any
disclosure statement. Even forensic report records
that in three of the dandas, blood stains were
present but there was no blood on the other three
dandas.
(iii) The CCTV footages cannot be read into evidence.
There is no forensic report about it. The CCTV
footages were allegedly taken in a pen drive. There is
no recovery memo of pen drive. There is no sample
seal etc.
(iv) PW3 Gagandeep and PW4 Vikram Singh @ Vicky are
also not the eyewitnesses. They simply say that the
appellant suddenly came and assaulted the
deceased Vishal Kamboj. She submits that there is
no motive to kill the deceased. These witnesses have
not stated as to how the appellants reached at the
place? Were they chasing the deceased? There were
other witnesses nearby like A-One Juice Shop, but,
it's owner has not been made a witness.
8. Learned Senior Counsel submits that, in fact, the
appellant Shahrukh's wife had delivered a baby on that date in Anmol
Hospital. On that ground alone, he was granted bail earlier. Therefore,
it is argued that it is a case fit for bail.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant Arman submits that
even in the CCTV footages appellant Arman is not visible.
10. Learned State counsel submits that PW3 Gagandeep and
PW4 Vikram Singh @ Vicky are eyewitnesses. They have given entire
account of it. Insofar as, the evidence of PW1 Ramesh Chand and PW2
Narayan Chand is concerned, it is argued that, in fact, these witnesses
have not stated that they took the deceased to the hospital. According
to them, some other person had taken the deceased to the hospital and
they visited the hospital thereafter. Referring to the statement of PW8
Sub Inspector, Arjun Giri, it is argued that he had prepared the
inquest report.
11. It is a stage of bail post conviction. The appellant does not
have the benefit of presumption of innocence because he was a convict.
However, discussions shall be made to the limited extent of
appreciating the arguments as has been advanced at this stage, which
shall no bearing at the subsequent stage of appeal or at any other
proceedings.
12. It is a case of direct evidence. Motive loses significance in
such circumstances. According to PW1 Ramesh Chand, the father of
the deceased and PW2 Narayan Chand, they both were together when
the incident took place. They did not take the deceased to the hospital.
PW3 Gagandeep and PW4 Vikram Singh @ Vicky, they both were with
the deceased when the incident took place. According to them, in their
presence the appellants and others assaulted the deceased with lathi
and danda indiscriminately and they both managed to escape from
there. Post mortem report also records about the injuries.
13. Having considered, we do not see any ground to enlarge
the appellants on bail. Accordingly, bail applications deserve to be
rejected.
14. The bail applications are rejected.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
24.03.2026
Jitendra
