RAKHAL BANARJEE vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
2026:UHC:3884
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
st
Bail Application 1 No. 606 of 2026
Rakhal Banerjee ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Ravi Shankar Kandpal, learned counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. Vipul Painuli, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant
Rakhal Banerjee, who is in custody since 17.07.2024, under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS),
arising out of Case Crime No. 26 of 2024 registered at Police
Station Lambgaon, District Tehri Garhwal, for offences punishable
under Sections 103(1) (Murder), 238 (Causing disappearance of
evidence) and 3(5) (Common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
2. The State’s version, as emerging from the record, is that on
the night of 12.07.2024, between 11:00 PM and 12:00 AM, the
deceased Gaurav Jha, a labourer working at the construction site of
a Nagar Panchayat building in Lambgaon, Uttarakhand, was
allegedly subjected to assault and strangulation by the accused
persons, including the present applicant and co-accused. Thereafter,
the dead body of the deceased was allegedly thrown into bushes
beneath a room situated near the new Nagar Panchayat parking area
1
Bail Application 1st No. 606 of 2026-----Rakhal Banerjee vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
at Lambgaon. The FIR came to be lodged on 15.07.2024 at Police
Station Lambgaon on the basis of information furnished to the
complainant Deepak Panwar by the present applicant himself.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant
has been falsely implicated in the present case and is not named in
the FIR. It was argued that the allegation of actual assault is against
the co-accused persons, whereas the present applicant merely
informed the complainant about the incident.
5. It was further submitted that the applicant himself recorded
the incident and provided the video to the police, which prima facie
shows that he was not involved in the commission of murder.
Learned counsel contended that there is no independent eyewitness
against the applicant and no credible material connecting him with
the alleged offence.
6. Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant has no
criminal history, is in custody since 17.07.2024, charge-sheet has
already been filed and the trial has commenced. It was argued that
continued incarceration of the applicant would serve no useful
purpose.
7. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposed the bail application
and submitted that although the applicant was not named in the
FIR, his involvement surfaced during investigation. It was argued
that the video recovered from the applicant’s mobile phone, which
was later retrieved through FSL examination, clearly shows the
participation of the applicant along with the co-accused in the
commission of the offence.
8. It was further submitted that, on the pointing out of the
applicant and co-accused persons, the murder weapon was
recovered by the Investigating Officer. Learned State Counsel
2
Bail Application 1st No. 606 of 2026-----Rakhal Banerjee vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
argued that there is sufficient material collected during
investigation establishing the complicity of the applicant in the
offence and, considering the gravity of allegations, he does not
deserve to be enlarged on bail.
9. Upon due consideration, this Court observes that the State’s
case against the applicant is not founded merely upon suspicion or
circumstantial association. The State has specifically asserted that
the applicant was present at the spot at the time of the incident and
that the transcripts of videos recovered during forensic examination
prima facie depict the participation of the present applicant along
with co-accused persons in the alleged occurrence.
10. The FSL report with respect to the recovered videos has also
been relied upon by the State during investigation. At the stage of
consideration of bail, this Court is not expected to undertake a
meticulous examination of the evidentiary value of such material;
however, the same cannot be ignored while assessing the prima
facie involvement of the applicant.
11. This Court finds that the allegations against the applicant
pertain to a grave and heinous offence involving brutal assault and
murder of the deceased. The State has further alleged recovery of
the weapon used in the commission of offence on the pointing out
of the accused persons during investigation. The seriousness of the
accusation, the nature of evidence collected during investigation
and the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been
committed are all relevant considerations while adjudicating a
prayer for bail.
12. A perusal of the material placed before this Court prima facie
indicates that the role attributed to the applicant is not merely
passive in nature. The State’s case is not confined to the allegation
that the applicant was only present at the spot or happened to
3
Bail Application 1st No. 606 of 2026-----Rakhal Banerjee vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
witness the occurrence. Rather, the recovered video transcripts
prima facie indicate that while the co-accused persons were
allegedly assaulting and strangulating the deceased, the present
applicant was continuously recording the acts, uttering words of
instigation and exhortation, and encouraging the co-accused
persons during commission of the offence. The act of continuously
recording the occurrence, instead of attempting to prevent it or
dissociate himself from it, prima facie reflects conscious alignment
with the ongoing criminal acts.
13. In criminal jurisprudence, participation in crime is not
confined only to the hand that physically executes the final act. The
law equally attributes culpability to those who, by words, conduct,
encouragement or intentional facilitation, provide moral support
and psychological reinforcement to the principal offenders during
commission of crime. A mere bystander or passive witness may
stand on a different footing; however, where the conduct of an
accused demonstrates conscious facilitation, encouragement,
provocation or psychological reinforcement to the principal
offenders during the occurrence itself, such conduct prima facie
enters the realm of active complicity and abetment. Instigation need
not always be by explicit command; even words, gestures, conduct
or acts intended to embolden the principal offenders may amount to
active participation in the crime.
14. In the present case, the allegations against the applicant, as
emerging from the recovered video material, prima facie indicate
that he was not a detached observer but was allegedly encouraging
and provoking the co-accused persons while the deceased was
being subjected to assault and alleged sexual assault. The repeated
act of recording the incident while simultaneously exhorting the co-
accused persons cannot, at this stage, be viewed as an act of mere
passive witnessing. Rather, such conduct prima facie appears to
4
Bail Application 1st No. 606 of 2026-----Rakhal Banerjee vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
have provided moral support and psychological reinforcement to
the principal assailants during the occurrence itself.
15. This Court also cannot ignore the allegation of the State that
the applicant had subsequently deleted the said video recordings
from his mobile phone and that the same were later retrieved
through forensic examination. Prima facie, such conduct assumes
significance at this stage, as it may indicate an attempt to obliterate
incriminating material after realising the gravity and consequences
of the occurrence.
16. The Court is further constrained to observe that the
allegations in the present case depict a disturbing facet of criminal
behaviour where acts of violence and alleged sexual assault are
stated to have been recorded contemporaneously during
commission of the offence itself. Such recordings, apart from
reflecting insensitivity towards human dignity, also prima facie
indicate a disturbing tendency of documenting criminal acts of
violence and alleged sexual assault for possible later viewing,
circulation or exploitative use. Though these aspects shall
ultimately be tested during trial on the basis of evidence led by the
parties, the allegations nevertheless add to the gravity and depravity
of the offence at the present stage.
17. At the stage of consideration of bail, this Court is not
expected to meticulously appreciate the evidentiary value of the
recovered material or record conclusive findings on merits;
however, the prima facie material collected during investigation
cannot be ignored altogether.
18. So far as the submission regarding prolonged incarceration is
concerned, although the applicant is in custody since 17.07.2024
and charge-sheet has already been submitted, the trial has already
commenced before the court concerned. Therefore, merely on the
5
Bail Application 1st No. 606 of 2026-----Rakhal Banerjee vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
ground of custody period, this Court is not persuaded to enlarge the
applicant on bail.
ORDER
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
the gravity and nature of allegations, the prima facie material
collected during investigation, the alleged conduct attributed to the
applicant during and after the occurrence, and without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the
considered view that the applicant has failed to make out a case for
grant of bail.
Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected .
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
19.05.2026
SB
6
Bail Application 1st No. 606 of 2026-----Rakhal Banerjee vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.