I N TH E H I GH COURT OF UTTARAKH AN D

AT N AI N I TAL
H ON ’BLE M R. G. N AREN D AR, C.J.

H ON ’BLE M R. ASH I SH N AI TH AN I , J

BAI L APPLI CATI ON ( I A N O. 1 OF 2 0 2 3

IN
CRLA N O. 4 9 6 of 2 0 2 3

Dilip Rana …Appellant

W I TH

BAI L APPLI CATI ON ( I A N O. 1 OF 2 0 2 3

IN
CRLA N O. 4 9 7 of 2 0 2 3

Dharam j eet …Appellant

W I TH

BAI L APPLI CATI ON ( I A N O. 1 OF 2 0 2 3

IN
CRLA N O. 5 5 9 of 2 0 2 3

Babloo …Appellant
Versus
St at e of Ut t arakhand …Respondent

Pr e se nce :-
Mr. Adit ya Singh and Mr. Nandan Arya, learned counsel on
behalf of t he appellant s/ applicat ions in all t hese bail applicat ions.
Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deput y Advocat e General on behalf of t he
St at e of Ut t arakhand.
Mr. Adit ya Prat ap Singh, learned counsel on behalf of t he
com plainant .

1
JUD GM EN T : ( pe r H ON ’BLE M R. G. N AREN D AR, C.J.)

Heard Mr. Adit ya Singh and Mr. Nandan Arya,

learned counsel for t he appellant s/ applicant s in all

t hese bail applicat ions; Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deput y

Advocat e General for t he St at e of Ut t arakhand; and Mr.

Adit ya Prat ap Singh, learned counsel for t he

com plainant .

2. The present bail applicat ions arise from t he

convict ion and sent ence im posed by t he learned Vt h

Addit ional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Sessions Trial

No. 178/ 2012, t it led " St at e v. Bablu & Ot hers," arising

out of FI R/ Case Crim e No. 22/ 2012, under Sect ions

302, 34 & 506 I PC, regist ered at Police St at ion Pat hri,

Dist rict Haridwar. The accused persons, nam ely Bablu

( A- 1) , Dharam j eet ( A- 2) , and Dilip Rana ( A- 4) , were

convict ed under Sect ions 302 and 506 I PC.

3. As per t he prosecut ion’s case, on 14.02.2012

at about 8: 00 PM, t he com plainant Gun Bahadur ( PW-

1) , along wit h his brot her Gauravdeep ( PW- 2) ,

allegedly saw t heir fat her, Jagdish Prasad, being

assault ed in t he field of Pancham Singh ( PW- 7) . I t is

alleged t hat A- 1 Bablu was holding a st one, while A- 2

Dharam j eet , A- 3 Som lal ( since deceased) , and A- 4 Dilip

Rana had pinned down t he deceased on t he ground.

The com plainant st at ed t hat upon seeing t he wit nesses,

2
t he accused t hreat ened t hem , following which t he

com plainant and his brot her fled t he spot and lat er

found t heir fat her dead.

4. The learned t rial court relied prim arily on t he

t est im onies of PW- 1 and PW- 2, t reat ing t hem as eye-

wit nesses, and also t ook int o considerat ion Call Det ail

Records ( CDRs) t o convict t he accused. However, a

careful perusal of t he im pugned j udgm ent , specifically

paragraphs 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 114, 116,

and 117, raises significant doubt s regarding t he

prosecut ion’s case and t he evident iary value of t he

CDRs.

5. Subm issions on Behalf of t he St at e and t he

Com plainant :

Learned Deput y Advocat e General for t he

St at e and learned counsel for t he com plainant

vehem ent ly opposed t he grant of bail, arguing t hat t he

convict ion order passed by t he learned Sessions Court

was correct and was based on all t he evidence

produced by t he prosecut ion.

I t was cont ended t hat t he prosecut ion had

successfully est ablished t he guilt of t he accused beyond

a reasonable doubt , and t he t rial court had right ly

convict ed t he accused/ appellant s aft er appreciat ing t he

3
ent ire evidence, including t he eyewit ness t est im onies

and corroborat ive m at erial.

They furt her subm it t ed t hat t he CDRs and

ot her m at erial relied upon by t he defense do not

exonerat e t he accused, and t he t rial court had right ly

disregarded t he CDRs due t o non- com pliance wit h

Sect ion 65B of t he I ndian Evidence Act .

6. The CDRs were relied upon by t he

prosecut ion wit hout com pliance wit h Sect ion 65B of t he

I ndian Evidence Act , which m andat es an accom panying

cert ificat e for t he adm issibilit y of elect ronic records.

The invest igat ing officer failed t o obt ain t he requisit e

cert ificat e at t he t im e of filing t he charge- sheet , despit e

t he records being procured and relied upon in court .

The t rial court disregarded t he CDRs due t o t he

absence of a Sect ion 65B cert ificat e but failed t o

consider t hat t he invest igat ing officer’s om ission in

obt aining t he cert ificat e should not operat e t o t he

det rim ent of t he accused. I t is a well- set t led legal

posit ion, as reaffirm ed in Arj un Pandit Rao Khokhar v.

Kailash Kushan Rao Gorat iyal ( 2020) 7 SCC 1 and

Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer ( 2014) 10 SCC 473, t hat

elect ronic records are inadm issible wit hout a Sect ion

65B( 4) cert ificat e unless prim ary evidence is produced.

The t rial court , inst ead of out right rej ect ing t he CDRs,

4
ought t o have considered t hem in favour of t he

accused, given t hat t he m obile locat ion dat a cont radict s

t he prosecut ion’s case.

7. Furt her grounds for bail:

PW- 1 and PW- 2’s credibilit y as eye- wit nesses

is quest ionable, as t hey claim t o have seen t he incident

from a dist ance, in dim light , using only a t orch.

DW- 1, Deput y Superint endent of Police B.S. Chauhan,

st at ed t hat t he invest igat ion was part ially conduct ed

based on a previously recorded case diary, and he did

not independent ly verify t he previous invest igat ing

officer’s findings.

DW- 3, Ram pal Singh, a m at erial defense

wit ness, st at ed t hat he was present wit h t he deceased’s

fam ily for an ent ire day aft er t he incident , yet none of

t he fam ily m em bers inform ed him about t he m anner of

deat h, cast ing doubt on t he spont aneit y of t he FI R.

8. In view of t he above discussion, Bail

Applicat ion I A/ 01/ 2023 in CRLA No. 496/ 2023, Bail

Applicat ion I A/ 01/ 2023 in CRLA No. 497/ 2023, and Bail

Applicat ion I A/ 01/ 2023 in CRLA No. 559/ 2023 are

allowed.

9. The sent ence of t he accused is suspended.

The accused shall be fort hwit h released on bail, if not

required in any ot her case, subj ect t o each accused

5
execut ing a personal bond of ₹25,000/- and furnishing

one solvent suret y to t he sat isfact ion of t he

Jurisdict ional Magist rat e.

10. Regist ry is direct ed to com m unicat e t he

operat ive port ion of t his order t o t he Jail Aut horit ies

fort hwit h.

G. N AREN DAR, C.J.

ASH I SH N AI TH AN I , J.
th
Dt : 20 February, 2025
Ravi/ SB