Uttarakhand High Court
Manpreet Singh Chahal Alias Mani Alias … vs State Of Uttarakhand on 18 July, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
2025:UHC:6261
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
18th JULY, 2025
FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1687 OF 2024
Manpreet Singh Chahal alias Mani alias Chhuchi
..... Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. S.R.S. Gill,
Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Tumul Nainwal,
Assistant
Government
Advocate assisted by
Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal,
Brief Holder.
Counsel for the Informant/ : Mr. Arvind Vashistha,
Victim Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Aditya
Singh, Advocate.
With
FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2128 OF 2024
Sadhu Singh ..... Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. S.R.S. Gill,
Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Tumul Nainwal,
Assistant
Government
Advocate assisted by
Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal,
Brief Holder.
1
2025:UHC:6261
Counsel for the Informant/ : Mr. Arvind Vashistha,
Victim Senior Advocate assisted
by Mr. Aditya Singh,
Advocate.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.
These Applications have been filed under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 for grant of regular bail in connection with the
First Information Report No.631 of 2022, registered at
Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
Applicants are in judicial custody under Section 302
and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in
short, “IPC“).
2. As per the respondent, on 13.10.2022 at
around 08.30 a.m., Mahal Singh, the informant’s uncle,
was reading a newspaper at his house. Two unknown
persons came on a motorcycle and fired, due to which,
Mahal Singh died on the spot. Six-seven days before
the said incident, Mahal Singh received a phone call
from Harjeet Singh (named accused) from Canada. He
was demanding money from Mahal Singh. Harjeet
Singh had threatened to kill him for not giving the
money. The First Information Report was registered on
13.10.2022 at 23:09 hrs against Harjeet Singh. After
completion of the investigation, the investigating officer
2
2025:UHC:6261
filed a charge-sheet against the present applicants and
co-accused persons.
3. Heard Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel for the
applicants, Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant
Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Arvind
Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the informant/victim.
4. The First Bail Application No.1687 of 2024 is
being treated as a leading file.
5. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate, appearing for the
applicants, contended that nobody has actually seen
the assailants. The prosecution has come with the story
that the applicants were shooters, who were hired by
one of the co-accused to commit the offence, but the
investigating officer has failed to connect any such
strong evidence which can connect the applicants with
the alleged crime. Karampal Singh, the alleged eye-
witness and the informant of the present case has
though stated in his statement, recorded under Section
161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short,
“Code”) that both the assailants had run away on a
motorcycle and one of them was carrying a pistol and
further stated that he has seen the face of the
assailants and he can recognize if they are brought
3
2025:UHC:6261
before him, but, the such story is not narrated in the
First Information Report, lodged by him after almost
fourteen hours of the incident. The said delay has not
been explained in the First Information Report which
creates serious doubt on the prosecution version.
6. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate, further submitted
that both the applicants are residents of District Mansa,
Punjab and they have no concern with the present
case. They had no motive to commit the alleged
offence.
7. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate, appearing for the
applicants, submitted that the photographs annexed
with the counter affidavit, though are of the applicants
but it do not reveal any time and date. The said
photographs are of some public place and not the
house of the deceased and as per the CCTV footage,
the faces of the assailants were covered so how can it
be said that the applicants were going on the
motorcycle.
8. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate, appearing for the
applicants, contended that false recoveries of pistols
have been shown from the applicants. The report of
Forensic Science Laboratory (in short, “FSL”) also
suggests that nobody can be recognized in the CCTV
4
2025:UHC:6261
footage. The alleged recovered pistols were sent for
forensic examination on 01.11.2023 i.e. almost after
one year of the alleged incident. The prosecution has
also shown recovery of some clothes and footwear after
more than two months of the alleged incident, which is
highly doubtful. Thus, the prosecution has totally failed
to connect the applicants with the alleged crime and
this is no evidence case regarding the applicants.
Applicants have been in judicial custody from the
month of December, 2022.
9. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant
Government Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand,
contended before this Court that both the applicants
(with covered face) were detected in the CCTV footage,
installed in the house of the deceased, coming on a
motorcycle (Registration no.UK06K4963) towards the
house of the deceased and they were also seen by the
eye-witness/ informant Karampal Singh. The applicant
– Manpreet Singh Chahal alias Mani alias Chhuchi had
shot fire on the deceased while the applicant – Sadhu
Singh was driving the motorcycle. The faces of the
applicants were detected in the CCTV footage, installed
on the way, when they were returning after committing
the murder. The eye-witness/ informant Karampal
5
2025:UHC:6261
Singh has supported the said fact in his statement,
recorded under Section 161 of the Code.
10. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant
Government Advocate, further contended that the
motorcycle used in the crime was purchased by
Prabhjot Singh Pannu (co-accused) from Waheguru
Auto Deals just before a day from the date of incident.
This fact is supported by the statements of Jarnail
Singh (owner of the Waheguru Auto Deals) and
Mahendra Kashyap (worker of the said shop), recorded
under Section 161 of the Code. The said motorcycle
was provided to the applicants.
11. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant
Government Advocate, contended that after preparing
the inquest report, other formalities were performed to
send the dead body for post-mortem examination. The
post-mortem report reveals “Cause of death – As a
result of ante-mortem rifled bullet firearm injury
leading to hypovolemic shock and death”.
12. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant
Government Advocate, further contended that during
investigation the applicants were arrested from Punjab
and 9 mm pistols were recovered from each of them
and during investigation 9 mm pistol and four empty
6
2025:UHC:6261
cartridges were recovered from the place of incident.
As per the report of FSL, the pistol recovered from the
possession of the applicant – Manpreet Singh Chahal
alias Mani alias Chhuchi and cartridges which were
recovered from the place of incident have been found
to be fired from the said pistol. Copies of recovery
memo and report of FSL have been filed.
13. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant
Government Advocate, contended that at the time of
the incident, the applicant – Manpreet Singh Chahal
alias Mani alias Chhuchi was wearing a black T-shirt
and the applicant – Sadhu Singh was in red T-shirt and
on the pointing out of the applicants, the clothes worn
by them at the time of the incident were recovered.
14. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned Assistant
Government Advocate, submitted that the murder took
place on 13.10.2022 at about 8.30 a.m. The CCTV
footage shows that the assailants went towards the
deceased on the motorcycle on 13.10.2022 at 8:32:40
and came out of the deceased’s house at 8:33:11.
15. Adopting the submissions of Mr. Tumul
Nainwal, learned Assistant Government Advocate, Mr.
Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate, argued that
the applicants are hired shooters. They are residents of
7
2025:UHC:6261
Punjab. Their presence at the time of the incident was
detected at the scene of the incident. Ten criminal
cases are pending against the applicant – Manpreet
Singh Chahal alias Mani alias Chhuchi and the applicant
– Sadhu Singh is a convicted person. He has been
convicted under Section 148 and Section 302 read with
Section 149 of IPC, in case, “State vs. Balbir Singh and
Others” in the State of Punjab. Apart from this, the
applicant – Sadhu Singh has committed various crime
including the present crime and in these circumstances
if they are granted bail, there will be every possibility of
their absconding and pressurizing the witnesses.
16. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel appearing for
the applicants, submitted that the applicants have been
in judicial custody since December, 2022. Therefore, in
the light of this fact, they are entitled to bail.
17. The liberty of an individual is not absolute.
The emphasis on individual liberty cannot be extended
to such an extent that it creates disorder and anarchy
in the society. The bail cannot be granted only on the
ground of long incarceration, where the accused is
charged of having committed a serious offence.
18. In “Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala vs.
State of Gujarat and Others“, (2008) 3 SCC 775, it
8
2025:UHC:6261
was observed that the period of incarceration by itself
would not entitle the accused to be enlarge on bail.
19. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is
very well-settled. It is well-settled that the Court
should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and
not as a matter of course. Though at the time of
considering the bail application a detailed examination
of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit
of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to
indicate in such order reasons for prima facie
concluding why bail is being granted particularly where
the accused is charged of having committed a serious
offence. Therefore, it is necessary for the Court to
consider among other circumstances, the following
factors:-
(i) The nature of accusation and the severity
of punishment in case of conviction.
(ii) The nature of supporting evidence.
(iii) Reasonable apprehension of tampering
with the evidence or apprehension of threat
to the informant or witnesses.
(iv) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in
support of the charge.
9
2025:UHC:6261
20. From the perusal of the evidence, collected
during the investigation, it prima facie appears that the
applicants were involved in this serious crime.
21. Having considered the rival submissions,
under the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the view that the applicants do not deserve
bail at this stage. Their bail applications deserve to be
rejected.
22. The bail applications of the applicants are,
accordingly, rejected.
23. A copy of this order be placed on the record
of the First Bail Application No.2128 of 2024.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Date: 18.07.2025
Pant/
10
[ad_1]
Source link