Uttarakhand High Court
Harendra Chauhan ……..Appellant/ vs State Of Uttarakhand on 18 February, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2023
In
Criminal Appeal No. 734 of 2023
Harendra Chauhan ........Appellant/Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ........... Respondent
Present : Ms. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Saurav Adhikari,
Advocate for the appellant/applicant.
Mr. Siddharth Bisht, AGA with Mr. Rakesh Negi, Brief Holder for the
State.
With
Bail Application (IA) No.1 of 2023
In
Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2023
Jiwan Singh ........Appellant/Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ........... Respondent
Present : Mr. Vikas Anand and Ms. Gyanmati Kushwaha, Advocates for the
appellant/applicant.
Mr. Siddharth Bisht, AGA with Mr. Rakesh Negi, Brief Holder for the
State.
Coram : Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani. J.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Since both these appeals arise from a common
judgment and order, they are heard together.
2. Instant Criminal Appeals are preferred by the
appellants Harendra Chauhan and Jiwan Singh, against the
judgment and order dated 27.09.2023 and 05.10.2023, passed in
Sessions Trial No.81 of 2017, State of Uttarakhand vs. Pappu Singh
Rana and others, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge,
2
Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the appellants
Harendra Chauhan and Jiwan Singh have been convicted and
sentenced under Sections 302, 201, 364-A, 342, 120-B read with
Section 34 IPC and under Sections 302, 201, 364-A, 342, 120-B,
212 read with Section 34 IPC respectively. The appellants Harendra
Chauhan and Jiwan Singh seek bail during pendency of these
appeals.
3. Heard on Bail Applications.
4. The deceased Suraj Chand had left his home on
03.07.2016. At 08:00, in the evening, he was talking to his wife
Manju Devi, but he did not return. The report was lodged on the
next day.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant Harendra Chauhan
submits that there is no evidence against the appellant; nothing
was recovered from him; he was working with one Lalit Jyala, who
had enmity with the deceased; merely on the ground that the
appellant was talking to Lalit Jyala, he has been implicated in the
case.
7. Learned State Counsel does not dispute it. Though,
according to him, PW5 had stated that on 03.07.2016, at 2 – 2:30
pm, they had seen the appellant Harendra Chauhan with the co-
convict Ishwari Singh. If the appellant was in the company of the
co-convict, what difference does it make? How is it incriminating
3
has not been stated. Merely based on calls that were made by the
appellant to the co-convict Lalit Jyala, can a finding of guilt be
recorded? This and many more questions will find answer during
trial.
8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a
case fit for bail in so far as appellant Harendra Chauhan is
concerned.
9. In so far as the appellant Jiwan Singh is concerned,
learned counsel for the appellant submits that allegedly a bed-sheet
was recovered from his house, but it was never sent for forensic
examination. Learned counsel submits that according to
prosecution, Lalit Jyala abducted the deceased and confined him in
the house of Jiwan Singh. Subsequently, he took the deceased from
the house of Jiwan Singh and killed him and his dead body was
dumped in the pit of the co-convict Suresh Singh Rana.
10. The co-convict, who is mother of the appellant Jiwan
Singh has already been enlarged on bail. The bed-sheet was never
forwarded for Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.
11. These facts are also not denied by the learned State
Counsel. Learned State Counsel also submits that four blank stamp
papers were also recovered from the house of the appellants Jiwan
Singh and Munni Devi.
12. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of
the view that in so far as the appellant Jiwan Singh is concerned, he
is also entitled for bail.
4
13. Having considered, this Court is of the view that these
are the cases in which the execution of sentence should be
suspended and the applicants/appellants be enlarged on bail.
14. The bail applications are allowed.
15. The execution of sentence, which is under challenge in
these appeals shall remain suspended during the pendency of these
appeals.
16. Let the applicants/appellants Harendra Chauhan and
Jiwan Singh be released on bail, during pendency of these appeals
on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable
sureties, each of the like amount, by each one of them, to the
satisfaction of the court concerned.
17. List along with connected cases.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
18.02.2026
Sanjay
