Uttarakhand High Court
Shiv Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 14 July, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
UKHC010068112022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application (IA No.01 of 2023)
In
Criminal Jail Appeal No.33 of 2022
Shiv Singh ........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ......Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Sharang Dhulia, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned A.G.A 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 09.12.2021, passed in Sessions Trial No.09 of 2019, State of
Uttarakhand vs. Shiv Singh, by the court of learned Sessions Judge,
Pauri Garhwal. By it, the appellant has been convicted under Section
302 of IPC and sentenced accordingly. The appellant seeks bail during
pendency of the appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. Deceased was found dead in the courtyard of the
appellant; in the evening of 17.11.2018, a report was lodged by the
brother of the deceased.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is not a
case of under Section 302 of IPC; even if the prosecution case is
accepted in its entirety, it may lead to an offence under Section 304 of
2
IPC. The appellant has already undergone about 8 years of custody. He
further submits that it is the case of circumstantial evidence, no
motive has been attributed; as per prosecution case, the appellant and
deceased both were friends and consumed liquor before the incident;
injuries are not on vital parts. In para 60 of the impugned judgment,
the court had recorded that in fact, the doctor has not stated that the
injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death,
hence, it is argued that at this stage, the appellant is entitled to grant
bail.
5. Learned State counsel submits that the appellant did
make an extra-judicial confession that he had committed the murder of
the deceased. PW7 has stated that, in fact, the deceased had gone to
demand the money that was to be paid by the appellant. The Forensic
Science Laboratory report also supports this.
6. It is a stage of bail post conviction. Much of the discussion,
at this stage, is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with
the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no
bearing at any subsequent stage of the proceedings and in any other
matter.
7. As such no motive is assigned. Admittedly, according to
the prosecution, the appellant and the deceased both had consumed
liquor in the house of the appellant. Does the case falls under Section
304 of IPC?
8. Having considered, 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.
3
9. The bail application is allowed.
10. The execution of sentence appealed against is suspended
during the pendency of the appeal.
11. 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.
12. List the appeal in due course for final hearing.
1
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
14.07.2026 14.07.2026
Shiv/Akash
