Uttarakhand High Court
Chandra Mohan Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 February, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
IA No.1 of 2023 For Bail Application
In
Criminal Appeal No. 666 of 2023
Chandra Mohan Singh ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Present:
Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
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 10.08.2023, passed in Sessions Trial
No.02 of 2023, State Vs. Chandra Mohan Singh, by the court of
Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag. By it, the appellant has been
convicted and sentenced under Sections 365, 302 and 201 IPC.
2. Heard.
3. This appeal has already been admitted.
4. The LCR has already been received.
5. List in due course for final hearing.
6. Heard on Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2023.
7. The deceased, Vandana, was found missing from
her home. A missing report was lodged. Subsequently, based on
call detail records, it was revealed that the appellant was talking
to her continuously on the date of her missing. The FIR records
that when the appellant was interrogated, he revealed that he was
in romantic relationship with the deceased. They both were
married having children with their respective spouses. On
15.11.2022, the deceased came to the house of the appellant. The
appellant persuaded her to go back to her home, but she did not.
2
Thereafter, the appellant made the deceased believe that they both
would consume poison. He offered the poison to the deceased. She
consumed it, and died, but the appellant did not consume it.
Subsequently, at the instance of the appellant, the dead body of
the deceased was recovered.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
there is no evidence against the appellant except the confessional
statement; the recovery of the dead body is from an open space,
accessible to all, that too almost after 5-6 days.
9. Learned State Counsel admits these factual
narrations.
10. It is a case based on circumstantial evidence.
Whatever material has been placed, persuades this Court at this
stage to grant bail to the appellant.
11. Having considered this and other attending
factors, this Court is 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. 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.)
24.02.2026
Ravi Bisht
3
