RAMESH RAM vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
SL.
Date
No

2026:UHC:4293



BA1 No. 937 of 2026
Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Mr. Akshay Joshi, learned counsel for the Applicant.
2. Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. The present Bail Application has been moved by the
Applicant, Ramesh Ram, S/o Ani Ram, R/o Village Kismilla, P.S.
Kapkot, District Bageshwar, Uttarakhand, who is in judicial custody
in connection with FIR No. 01 of 2025, registered at Police Station
Revenue Area Kalasila, Berinag, District Pithoragarh, for offences
punishable under Sections 87, 140(1), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
5. Learned counsel for the Applicant, while pressing the present
bail application, submitted that the Applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case and has been in judicial custody since
11.12.2025.
6. It is contended that there is no independent witness to support
the prosecution case, and no motive has been attributed either to the
present Applicant or to any of the co-accused persons.
7. It is further submitted that the missing person report was
lodged by the informant after an unexplained delay of four days and
the FIR came to be registered on 30.09.2025, i.e., after a delay of
about eighteen days from the date of the alleged kidnapping of Ms.
Sunita Devi. According to the Applicant, such a delay materially
affects the reliability of the prosecution case and the evidence
allegedly collected during the investigation.
8. Learned counsel for the Applicant further submits that the

alleged recovery of the purse and other belongings of Ms. Sunita
Devi has not been attributed to any specific accused person. Rather,
the recovery is stated to have been made at the instance of all four
accused persons collectively, which renders the prosecution story
doubtful.
9. It is also submitted that neither the Applicant nor the co-
accused persons possessed any vehicle capable of transporting the
victim or a dead body over such a long distance. Furthermore,
learned counsel for the Applicant further submits that two co-
accused persons, who were arrested along with the present
Applicant, have already been enlarged on bail and, therefore, the
Applicant is entitled to parity.
10. It is said that the dead body recovered from Tanakpur,
District Champawat, which is situated more than 200 kilometres
away from the place of the alleged incident, has not been established
to be that of the missing victim.
11. It is submitted that neither has the identity of the deceased
been conclusively linked with Ms. Sunita Devi nor has any post-
mortem report been brought on record indicating the cause or
approximate time of death.
12. It is lastly contended that a DNA sequencing was conducted
on the dead body so recovered and alleged to be of the missing
person known asMs.Sunita Devi for ascertainingher identity; but the
DNA report concludes that the dead body was that of a
“MALE”human being and not of a “FEMALE”, which makes all
allegations against the Applicant unfounded.
13. It is requested thus that the Applicant be immediately
released on bail.
14. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposed the bail application
and submitted that the allegations against the Applicant are grave

and serious in nature. However, he could not dispute the fact that
two co-accused persons have already been granted bail, nor the fact
that as per the DNA/FSL report, the body recovered during
investigation was found to be that of a male.
15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal
of the material available on record, this Court finds that this is a fit
case for enlarging the Applicant on bail who is in judicial custody
since 11.12.2025.
16. The record reveals that, as per the findings of the Forensic
Science Laboratory, referred to in paragraph no. 12 of the case
diary, the dead body recovered during the investigation, which was
initially suspected to be that of the missing victim, was found on
DNA examination to be of a male and not of a female.
17. The Court also takes note of the fact that two co-accused
persons have already been enlarged on bail and no distinguishing
circumstance has been pointed out by the prosecution so as to deny
the benefit of parity to the present Applicant.
18. Prima facie, therefore, the scientific evidence presently
available on record does not support the prosecution's identification
of the recovered dead body as that of the missing woman.
19. At this stage, no material has been brought to the notice of
this Court conclusively establishing that the recovered dead body
was in fact that of Ms. Sunita Devi. The aforesaid discrepancy
assumes considerable significance, particularly when the
prosecution case proceeds on the premise that the recovered dead
body was that of the missing victim.
20. Without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the
case, this Court finds that the aforesaid circumstance, emerging
from the scientific evidence placed on record, constitutes a
substantial factor weighing in favour of the Applicant for the

purposes of consideration of bail.
21. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed.
22. Let the Applicant, namely Ramesh Ram, be released on bail,
upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in
the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
23. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove is
only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application
and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
24. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.


(Ashish Naithani, J.)
30.05.2026
Shiksha