SAVITA SAGAR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010019432026

2026:UHC:7863
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

BA1/196/2026

Savita Sagar --Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent

Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. M. K. Ray, learned counsel for the
applicant.
2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A.
for the State.
3. Present applicant Savita Sagar, W/o
Late Nannu Mal is praying for bail in
reference to FIR dated 06.11.2024 bearing FIR
No. 369 of 2024, P.S. Kunda District Udham
Singh Nagar lodged by one Vedpal
implicating present applicant and one Aatif
for the offence punishable under Section
103(1) of BNS 2023. This FIR was lodged by
the step son of the applicant which was
investigated and charge sheet has been filed
on 06.11.2024 wherein the present applicant
and other co-accused, namely, Aatif have
been charge sheeted for the offences
punishable under Section 103(1) read with
Section 3(5) of BNS 2023.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for
the applicant that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated and other co-
accused Aatif has already been enlarged on
bail by the Coordinate Bench on 27.11.2025
and while granting bail to the other co-
accused the Coordinate Bench also
considered the submission of the State
Counsel wherein State Counsel confined
argument only to the extent that the offence
as alleged is of grievous and heinous. He

UKHC010019432026

2026:UHC:7863
further submits that present applicant is on
better footing since there is no recovery from
the present applicant and the recovery as
shown by the prosecution is from the co-
accused , i.e. recovery of motor cycle of the
deceased. He further submits that the present
applicant is languishing in jail since
08.11.2025 and she has no criminal
antecedent and only on the basis of her
confessional statement and confessional
statement of other co-accused the applicant is
charge sheeted. Apart from this, he submits
that present applicant has already suffered
long incarceration of 1 year and 9 months
and the case of the prosecution is only based
on circumstantial evidence and there is no
any such direct evidence, even, there is no
eye witness to the incident. Apart from this,
it is argued that charge sheet has already
been filed and therefore, there is no question
for further custodial interrogation of the
applicant. He further submits that there is no
independent or public witness to the alleged
recovery as shown from the co-accused and
the recovery as shown is completely doubtful
and appears to be planted one. Apart from
this, he submits that no ground of arrest has
been provided to the applicant which is
mandatory requirement in terms of Section
22(1) of the Constitution of India. He submits
that case of the applicant is on better footing
to the case of co-accused who is already
enlarged on bail, therefore, applicant
deserves for bail as well as deserves to get
benefit of parity.
5. On the other side, Mr. Sandeep
Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State
vehemently opposed the bail application by
submitting that present applicant took active
role in commission of crime, since, as per the
prosecution she was in illicit relations with
other co-accused Aatif. He also submits that

UKHC010019432026

2026:UHC:7863
though there is no recovery from the present
applicant and the recovery is from the co-
accused who is already enlarged on bail by
the Coordinate Bench but the investigation
reveals that the applicant anyhow want to
eliminate the deceased (her husband) since
he was the main obstacle for her illicit
relations with the other co-accused, and,
therefore, she conspired with the co-accused
to kill her husband. Apart from this, he
submits that from the co-accused towel and
the scarf which was used in the commission
of crime were also recovered.
6. After hearing the submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties and taking
into consideration the FIR including charge
sheet as well as the counter affidavit what
this Court has observed that applicant is the
wife of the deceased and investigation
reveals that she was in illicit relationship
with the co-accused Aatif, therefore, at this
juncture nothing can be said about the merit
of the case but motive and involvement of
the present applicant to eliminate her own
husband cannot be ruled out. So far as grant
of bail to the co-accused is concerned, the
applicant does not deserve to get the benefit
of the same. This Court is considering the
bail application of the applicant (wife of the
deceased) who has strong motive and
intention to eliminate her husband who was
the main obstacle, therefore, at this juncture
when the applicant is found to be involved in
killing of her own husband in connivance
with other co-accused with whom she was
having illicit relations, this Court is of the
view that the applicant does not deserve for
bail.
7. Accordingly, the instant bail
application is rejected.
8. It is made clear that the Trial Court
may proceed with the trial and conclude the

UKHC010019432026

2026:UHC:7863
same without being influenced with the
observations as above.



(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
01-09-2026
Parul