Bail Denied Following Armed Encounter and Recovery of Deceased’s Personal Effects in Police Custody Escape Attempt

The applicant filed a first bail application seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 98 of 2025, registered at Police Station Bahadrabad, Haridwar.

On 12.02.2025, S.I. Naresh Rathore received information that individuals involved in the murder of a doctor (Case Crime No. 90 of 2025) were in the area.

During a police chase, the accused persons' motorcycle slipped, and they allegedly opened fire on the police party to evade arrest.

Two suspects sustained injuries and were apprehended at the spot. Recovery included a motorcycle registered to the deceased Dr. Gopal Gupta and personal items (watch and shoes) belonging to the deceased found on the applicant.

The applicant contended he was falsely implicated based on suspicion, no independent witnesses were present for the recovery, and he sustained no firearm injuries despite the alleged exchange of fire.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail considering the nature of the recovery, the circumstances of the arrest, and the allegations of an armed attack on police personnel.

The court examined the application under Sections 109 (Possession of counterfeit coin) and 3(5) (Common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), and Sections 25 and 3 of the Arms Act.

The court relied on the established principles for bail, which include assessing the gravity and seriousness of the offense, the manner of commission, the potential for tampering with evidence, the likelihood of the accused absconding, and the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.

The court observed that the allegations against the applicant are grave, involving an active exchange of fire with police personnel in the discharge of their official duties.

The court noted that the applicant was apprehended at the spot immediately following the encounter, and the items recovered—specifically the deceased doctor’s motorcycle and personal effects—strongly indicate a prima facie link between the applicant and the underlying murder case.

While the defense argued that the recoveries were planted and lacked independent witnesses, the court prioritized the "gravity and nature of accusation" and the "manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed".

The court found that because the investigation had collected sufficient material and the offense involved illegal firearms, granting bail at this stage posed a risk of the applicant influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.

The High Court of Uttarakhand rejected the bail application.