ADVERTISEMENT
Uttarakhand High Court
Harvinder vs State Of Uttarakhand on 12 March, 2026
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI ALOK KUMAR VERMA
AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI ALOK MAHRA
12th MARCH, 2026
THIRD BAIL APPLICATION IA No.6905 of 2025
in
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.149 of 2019
Harvinder ...... Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy
Advocate General assisted
by Mr. Pratiroop Pandey,
Assistant Government
Advocate.
(Per : Shri Alok Kumar Verma, J.)
The appellant Harvinder has been convicted and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of
Rs.1.00 lakh for the offence punishable under Section 302
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, "IPC"); he has
been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of seven years along with a fine
of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201
1
IPC; he has been further convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 404 read with Section 34 IPC and
has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years along with a fine of Rs.20,000/- vide
judgment and order dated 14.03.2019, passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar in
Sessions Trial No.357 of 2010.
2. The First Bail Application was rejected on
18.05.2021, and the Second Bail Application was rejected
on 21.07.2022.
3. Heard Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the respondent.
4. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate, appearing for the
appellant submitted that the grounds for rejection of the
earlier bail applications were:- there was money transaction
between the deceased and appellant of Rs.1 crore 15 lakh,
a sum of Rs.1,41,800/- was recovered from the house of
the appellant, and, the dead body of the deceased was
recovered at the instance of the appellant.
5. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate, contended that there is
no documentary or any other concrete evidence on record
regarding the alleged transaction of Rs.1 crore 15 lakh. The
said amount of Rs.1,41,800/- was recovered from the
almirah of the appellant. The said amount belonged to the
appellant's brother and a suggestion to this effect was
2
made by the appellant to the Investigating Officer and the
appellant has also clarified this fact in his statements,
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
6. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate, further contended that
according to the prosecution, the deceased died
approximately one week before the dead body was
recovered. The dead body was found lying in an open field.
Under these circumstances, it is hard to believe that the
dead body lying in the open field was not seen by anyone
else and it is also important to consider that the wife of the
deceased (PW28), in her cross-examination, has stated that
the dead body was not in a condition to be recognized and
one witness of inquest proceedings Kuldeep Singh (PW25)
has also stated in his cross-examination that the dead body
could not be identified.
7. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate, submitted that the
appellant has spent more than eight years in judicial
custody. He is a permanent resident of District Haridwar,
therefore, there is no chance of his absconding, and, he
was on bail during the trial and the conditions of bail were
not misused or violated by him.
8. Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General, has
opposed the bail application. However, he submitted that
there is no documentary evidence regarding the transaction
of Rs.1 crore 15 lakh. It is true that the dead body was
3
unidentifiable, but the dead body was identified through the
articles found near it.
9. Having considered the submissions of learned
counsel for both the parties, without expressing any opinion
as to the merits or demerits of the case, this Court is
inclined to grant bail to the appellant during the pendency
of this appeal.
10. The Third Bail Application (IA No.6905 of 2025)
is allowed.
11. Let the appellant- Harvinder be released on bail
on his executing a personal bond of Rs. 40,000/- and
furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to
the satisfaction of the trial court.
_____________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
________________
ALOK MAHRA, J.
Dated: 12.03.2026
Pant/
4
SPONSORED
