ASHOK KUMAR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010135172026
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
SL.
Date

No.

2026:UHC:10208



COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

BA2/121/2026
Ashok Kumar --Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent

Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for
the applicant.
2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl.
Advocate General assisted by Mr. Deepak
Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. The instant second bail application is
moved on behalf of the present applicant
Ashok Kumar, S/o Raghuvir Singh, who is
facing trial in Session Trial No.13 of 2025 for
the offences punishable under Sections 120-B,
201 & 302 of IPC arising out of Case Crime
No.0337 of 2024, P.S. Kankhal, District
Haridwar.
4. The first bail application was dismissed
by this Court on 17.12.2025 against which the
applicant approached to the Hon’ble Apex
Court by way of Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) Diary No(s).16905 of 2026 and the
same was also dismissed on 23.04.2026.
5. Now the instant second bail application
is moved primarily on the ground that the
applicant suffered incarceration of more than
two years and there is no substantial
progress in the trial since out of in total 25
prosecution witnesses uptill date only 6
prosecution witnesses have been examined.
Apart from this he submits that the two other

co-accused have been recently arrested,
therefore, the prosecution witnesses, who
have been examined uptill date will be again
cross examined, therefore, there is no
possibility that the trial would be expedited
soon. He also submits that applicant have no
previous criminal history.
6. This is a case in which dead body was
never been recovered and the entire
prosecution case is based on circumstantial
evidence.
7. Be that as it may though the
prosecution case is based on circumstantial
evidence but it is settled principle of law that
while considering the bail application, the
merit should not be touched, therefore, this
Court will not go into all these aspects. The
first bail application was also rejected by the
detailed order but the fact remains that there
is no progress in the trial and the applicant is
languishing in jail since 20.10.2024 and
suffered incarceration of more than two
years. In reference to the long incarceration,
learned counsel for the applicant placed
reliance to the decision of Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Mahesh Chandra Joshi
vs. State of Rajasthan 2026 INSC 1141
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed
that pre-trial incarceration is neither
warranted nor necessary and the legitimate
apprehension of the prosecution can be
adequately safeguarded by imposing
appropriate conditions.
8. On the other side Mr. G.S. Sandhu,
learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by
Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder
for the State also submits that there are in

total 25 prosecution witnesses and uptill date
only 6 prosecution witnesses have been
examined and also apprise that since recently
two other co-accused, who were absconded
were arrested, therefore, the witnesses who
have been examined earlier will also be again
cross examined, therefore, at this juncture,
there is no possibility that trial would be
expedited soon. Mr. Sandhu further submits
that as per the prosecution, the present
applicant infact is the main accused,
therefore, grant of bail to the present
applicant may hamper with the trial as well
as the cross examination of prosecution
witnesses however he has not disputed that
the applicant suffered incarceration of more
than two years. Finally, Mr. Sandhu,
conclude his argument by submitting that if
the applicant be enlarged on bail some
stringent conditions may be imposed with
this rider that grant of bail to the present
applicant will not be treated as precedent in
respect of other co-accused.
9. The submission as advanced by Mr.
G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate
General have some substance.
10. After hearing the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and taking
into consideration that the applicant suffered
incarceration of more than two years as he is
languishing in jail since 20.10.2024 and have
no criminal antecedents and further there is
no substantial progress in the trial and it is
settled principle of law that pre-trial
incarceration is neither warranted nor
necessary, this Court is of the view that
applicant deserves for bail.

11. Accordingly, without expressing any
opinion on the merit of the case, the instant
second bail application is allowed.
12. Let the present applicant-Ashok Kumar
be released on bail on his executing a
personal bond and furnishing two reliable
sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction
of the court concerned subject to the
following conditions:-
i. After being released on bail the
applicant shall surrender his passport,
if any, with the trial court within three
days.
ii. After being released on bail, the
applicant shall join trial court
proceeding on each and every date
without seeking any unnecessary
adjournment.
iii. Applicant shall not make any
attempt to threaten any of the
whiteness or to temper with the
evidence.

13. It is made clear that grant of bail to the
present applicant will not be treated as
precedent in respect of other co-accused and
if they approach their bail application will be
decided independently on it’s own merit.


(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
04.11.2026
Arti