Allowed¶29

Gurdev Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC6 Jun 2025BA1/1195/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court (Nainital), First Bail Application No. 1195 of 2024, Gurdev Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, decided 06.06.2025 by Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. - Bail granted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC (murder and disappearance of evidence), FIR No. 161 of 2023, P.S. Pulbhatta, Udham Singh Nagar - factors: no eye witness (admitted by State), recovery of knife and trouser doubted as lacking independent witnesses, inordinate four-day delay in FIR, CDR last location near Sitarganj, informant PW1 declared hostile - release on personal bond and two reliable sureties of like amount.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. ¶29

Gurdev Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:UHC:4657

¶2

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

First Bail Application No. 1195 of 2024

6 th June, 2025

Gurdev Singh

--Applicant

Versus

State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent

¶9

Presence:-

¶10

Mr. Vikas Anand and Ms. Gyan Mati Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. V. N. Mauleki, learned DAG for the State.

¶11

¶12

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

¶13

Applicant Gurdev Singh, who is in judicial custody in Case Crime/FIR No.161 of 2023, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, registered at P. S. Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶15

As per the FIR, the informant- Jaspal Singh lodged an FIR against the unknown persons with the allegations that his nephew, namely, Papendra Singh @ Ladi, a habitual drinker, was doing the work of conductor with his brother (applicant), who is truck driver; that, on

¶16

¶17

2025:UHC:4657

¶18

01.08.2023, both the brothers reached Lalkuan after unloading the goods from their Truck No. UP80DT 5927 at Haldwani and had dinner at Prakash Dhaba opposite Century Paper Mill; that, on 04.08.2023, the applicant informed the informant that his brother was not found and they went to the police station and were informed by the police personnel about the unknown dead body which was identified as the brother of the applicant.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent; that, applicant has no criminal history and; he is languishing in jail since 05.08.2023; that, during investigation, in the statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the complainant raised a doubt on the applicant merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions; that, on 06.08.2023, the police concerned recovered the knife and trouser of the deceased on the pointing out of the applicant from an open place with the allegations that there was blood on the said knife and trouser, however, the inability of the police concerned to mark the presence of a single independent eye witness to the alleged recovery renders the entire recovery proceedings to be doubtful and planted; that, the incident occurred at the

¶20

¶21

2025:UHC:4657

¶22

night of 01.08.2023, but the alleged FIR was lodged with an inordinate delay of almost four days, which has not been explained by the complainant.

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the alleged truck was recovered by the police from the possession of the driver, namely, Chaman and conductor, namely, Brajesh with blood on its seat, which creates serious doubt on the prosecution story; that, the police concerned could not find the CDR of the applicant near the place where the dead body was allegedly recovered since his last location was found near Sitarganj and the dead body was allegedly recovered from Pulbhatta; that, there is no evidence in the form of any CCTV footage or corroborating evidence of the eyewitness.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that as per the statement of PW1 Jaspal Singh-informant, he denied the entire prosecution story and was declared hostile.

¶25

Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail, however, he admits that there is no eye witness of the incident.

¶26

¶27

2025:UHC:4657

¶28

In view of the above, but, without expressing any opinion about merits of the case before the Trial Court, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for bail.

¶29

The bail application is thus, allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

(Alok Mahra, J.)

06.06.2025

BALWANT SINGH Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH Date: 2025.06.09 19:07:40 +05'30'

¶34

Gurdev Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdev Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Kumar Agarwal Vs Smt. Sarita Agarwal

Sethpal Singh Alias Setha Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vishwas Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ripudaman Singh Negi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Jitendra Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Seema Vs State of Uttarakhand