[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Rajesh Mehta Alias Raju vs State Of Uttarakhand on 25 March, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application No. 01 of 2024
In
Criminal Appeal No.479 of 2024
Rajesh Mehta alias Raju ......Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Mr. D.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.
Maneesh Bisht, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. B.M. Molekhi, D.A.G. 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 30.07.2024, passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 53 of
2014, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Rajesh Mehta @ Raju and another, by
the court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun. By it, the
appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced
accordingly. He seeks bail during the pendency of the appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. This is an admitted appeal.
4. List for final hearing in due course.
5. Heard on Bail Application No.1 of 2024
6. According to the FIR on 17.05.2013, deceased Vaiju Shah
returned from his work at 08:30 p.m., but suddenly, he received a
phone, thereafter, he left. But again, he did not return. A search was
made. His dead body was recovered on 18.05.2013
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt; the appellant was on bail during trial; there is no
case based on circumstantial evidence; the chain in incomplete;
merely based on recovery of a muffler near the dead body, it has been
inferred that perhaps, it is the appellant who had killed the deceased,
because the muffler belongs to him. It is argued that, in fact, PW2
Saraswati Devi did identify the muffler for the first time in court after
about three years, but she could not recognize a handkerchief, which
according to her, perhaps belonged to her husband. In addition to it,
it is argued that the prosecution has relied on the recovery of a mobile
phone at the instance of the appellant on 10.01.2014, but he submits
that PW1 Ram Ratan Singh has stated that the mobile was lying on
the road. It is DW1 Ajay Sonkar is another witness of the recovery,
but he has not supported the prosecution case with regard to the
recovery. It is argued that apart from it, there is no evidence against
the appellant.
8. Learned State counsel admits that these two factors were
against the appellant. In addition to it, he submits that the death was
homicidal. A mobile was also recovered. He submits that there was a
diary of the deceased in which it was recorded that the appellant had
to pay certain money to the deceased.
9. Having considered the entirety of facts, 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.
10. The bail application is allowed.
11. The execution of sentence appealed against is suspended
during the pendency of the appeal.
12. Let 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.)
25.03.2026
Jitendra
