ASHOK KUMAR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
2026:UHC:4124
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
st
Bail Application 1 No. 229 of 2026
Ashok Kumar ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Siddhartha Bankoti, learned legal Aid counsel for the Applicant.
Mr.Pratiroop Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral)
1. The present first bail application has been filed by the
applicant, Ashok Kumar, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The Applicant has
been in custody since 16.07.2024 in connection with Case
Crime No. 13 of 2024, registered at Police Station Lambgaon,
District Tehri Garhwal, for the 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 case, in brief, is that on the intervening night of
12.07.2024 (between 11:00 PM and 12:00 AMthe deceased,
Gaurav Jha, a labourer working at a Nagar Panchayat
construction site at Lambgaon, was allegedly overpowered by
the accused persons and thereafter subjected to a brutal and
heinous assault, including forcible unnatural sexual assault,
1
Bail Application 1st No. 229 of 2026-----Ashok Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
physical violence, continuous humiliation and abuse, and was
ultimately strangulated to death with a plastic wire.
3. The State alleges that the present Applicant, along with co-
accused Rakhal Banerjee and co-accused Ranjan Malakar,
actively participated in the commission of the offence,
wherein one of the accused committed the act of sodomy,
while the others allegedly instigated, facilitated, abused, and
overpowered the victim, and recorded the incident on a
mobile phone during the course of the occurrence.
4. Post the commission of the offence, the dead body was
thrown into bushes beneath a room near the new Nagar
Panchayat parking area. The First Information Report (FIR)
was lodged on 15.07.2024 by the complainant, Deepak
Panwar, based on information provided to him by co-accused
Rakhal Banerjee.
5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
Applicant is not named in the FIR and his identification as
“Samrat” has been made subsequently by the police without
independent corroboration. It was argued that the
complainant is not an eyewitness and the FIR itself is based
upon information allegedly received from a co-accused,
thereby rendering the prosecution story doubtful. Counsel
further submitted that there is no direct eyewitness to the
alleged incident, and the prosecution case rests largely on
hearsay material.
6. It was further contended that there is an unexplained delay of
about three days in lodging the FIR, which casts doubt upon
the State’s version. Learned counsel also pointed out that no
2
Bail Application 1st No. 229 of 2026----- Ashok Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
fingerprint or other scientific evidence has been collected
linking the applicant to the crime scene. It was argued that no
motive has been attributed to the applicant, who was merely a
co-worker of the deceased.
7. Learned Counsel for the Applicant further submitted that the
Applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained in
judicial custody since 16.07.2024. It was argued that the trial
is likely to take considerable time, and continued
incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment. Reliance
was also placed on the principle of parity with co-accused
persons.
8. Learned AGA opposed the bail application and submitted that
the prosecution possesses video evidence clearly showing the
presence and active participation of the applicant in the
assault upon the deceased. It was argued that the video clips
reveal the applicant physically assaulting the deceased and
remaining present throughout the occurrence, thereby
establishing common intention with the co-accused.
9. The State further submitted that after the incident, the
Applicant fled from the place of occurrence along with the
co-accused and was later apprehended in Delhi, which
reflects consciousness of guilt. Reliance was also placed upon
the confessional statements recorded during the investigation,
as well as witness statements identifying the applicant as
“Samrat”.
10. Emphasis was laid upon the gravity and brutality of the
offence. It was submitted that material witnesses are yet to be
3
Bail Application 1st No. 229 of 2026----- Ashok Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
examined, and there exists a genuine apprehension of witness
intimidation and tampering with evidence if the applicant is
released on bail. The State also argued that the applicant,
being a migrant worker with no permanent roots in
Uttarakhand, poses a risk of absconding.
11. This Court has carefully perused the material on record,
the case diary, the order of rejection passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, dated 09.09.2025,
and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the
parties.
12. The offence alleged against the present applicant is one
of deliberate, premeditated murder punishable with death
under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The manner in which the crime was allegedly committed,
subjecting the deceased Gaurav Jha to sustained physical
violence, sexual assault, and ultimately death by
strangulation.
13. This Court is further constrained to observe that the
allegations and the prima facie evidence in the present case
reveal a depravity that is uncommon even among serious
criminal offences. The manner in which the offence was
committed, where the deceased was not only brutally
murdered but was also subjected to forced unnatural sexual
assault before being killed, and where the entire act was
contemporaneously recorded while the applicant held the
victim down, exhibits extreme perversity and a complete
absence of basic human empathy. Such acts do not merely
constitute offences against an individual; they constitute
offences against the collective conscience of civilised society.
4
Bail Application 1st No. 229 of 2026----- Ashok Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
14. The conduct attributed to the accused persons further
reflects an apparent attempt to conceal and obliterate the
evidence of the crime, inasmuch as the body of the deceased
was allegedly thrown into the bushes after the commission of
the offence. The gravity and shocking nature of the alleged
offence weigh heavily against the grant of bail.
15. The contention of the applicant that he is not named in
the FIR is a factor that this Court finds to be of limited weight
in light of the overwhelming electronic evidence collected
during the investigation.
16. Nine video clips recovered from the pen drive found in
the mobile phone of co-accused Rakhal Banerjee, verified at
the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, clearly
establish the presence and active participation of the present
applicant, known among the accused as "Ashok @ Samrat",
at the scene of the crime during the commission of the
offence. The applicant is seen and heard on these recordings.
The applicant's role, therefore, stands well-established by
forensic evidence independent of the FIR.
17. The very recording of such acts of violence and sexual
assault, as alleged in the present case, adds a further layer of
depravity.
18. The material placed before this Court prima facie
indicates that the present applicant was not merely a passive
spectator or accidental bystander present at the scene of the
occurrence. Rather, the State’s case specifically alleges that
the applicant remained present throughout the sequence of
events, participated in assaulting the deceased, and continued
to associate himself with the acts allegedly being committed
by the co-accused person.
5
Bail Application 1st No. 229 of 2026----- Ashok Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
19. Such conduct prima facie reflects a disturbing tendency
to derive perverse gratification from the documentation of
human suffering and degradation.
20. The confessional statements of co-accused Rakhal
Banerjee, as recorded during investigation, specifically name
and implicate the present applicant as a direct participant in
the assault leading to the death of Gaurav Jha.
21. The investigating officer, in his affidavit filed in
response to the bail application, has clearly narrated the
sequence of events establishing the applicant's involvement.
22. The allegations, as borne out from the material
collected during the investigation, prima facie indicate
sustained physical assault, unnatural sexual violence,
humiliation of the deceased, repeated acts of brutality, and
ultimately strangulation leading to death, followed by
concealment of the dead body.
23. The allegations further indicate that the acts in question
were contemporaneously recorded during the occurrence
itself. The very circumstance that the alleged acts of violence
and degradation were continuously recorded during the
occurrence lends an additional degree of seriousness to the
prosecution case.
24. Prima facie, the material collected during the
investigation does not depict a situation where the applicant
attempted to dissociate himself from the occurrence or
prevent the commission of the alleged acts. Rather, the
prosecution case suggests conscious participation and
continued association with the acts allegedly committed
against the deceased.
25. The contention regarding the delay in lodging of the
FIR also does not persuade this Court. The incident is alleged
6
Bail Application 1st No. 229 of 2026----- Ashok Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
to have occurred during the intervening night of
12/13.07.2024, whereas the FIR came to be lodged on
15.07.2024 after the complainant allegedly received
information from co-accused Rakhal Banerjee regarding the
incident and the whereabouts of the deceased.
26. The material on record further reflects that the dead
body of the deceased was thereafter recovered from the spot
indicated by the accused persons. In the peculiar facts of the
present case, involving allegations of a brutal homicidal
assault during late-night hours, such delay cannot, by itself,
be treated as fatal to the State’s case.
27. Moreover, the State has placed reliance not merely
upon the FIR, but also upon electronic evidence, recovery of
the dead body, and statements recorded during investigation,
which prima facie connect the present applicant with the
commission of the offence.
28. Therefore, at this stage, the delay in lodging the FIR
does not appear to be of such a nature as to demolish the
credibility of the State’s case or entitle the applicant to bail
solely on that ground.
29. The material collected during the investigation,
particularly the acts reflected in the video footage and the
contents of the confessional statements, prima facie discloses
the applicant’s participation in the murder of the deceased
under Section 103(1) read with Section 3(5) B.N.S. The
doctrine of common intention, as embodied in Section 3(5)
B.N.S. (corresponding to the erstwhile Section 34 IPC), does
not require each co-accused to have personally committed
every act constituting the offence.
7
Bail Application 1st No. 229 of 2026----- Ashok Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
30. In cases involving heinous offences of murder
committed with premeditation and concealment of evidence,
the liberty of the accused must be weighed against the larger
interest of society and the imperatives of criminal justice.
This Court is satisfied that the present applicant has, on the
basis of material before it, not made out a case entitling him
to the relief of bail.
ORDER
Consequently, this Court is of the unequivocal
opinion that the present case falls within the exceptional
category where bail must be denied.
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no
merit in the present bail application. The bail application
filed by the applicant Ashok Kumar in connection with
Case Crime No. 13 of 2024, registered at Police Station
Lambgaon, District Tehri Garhwal, under Sections 103(1),
238 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., is hereby .
rejected
The applicant shall remain in custody as per the
directions of the trial court.
A copy of this order shall be made available to the
learned counsel for the applicant and to the learned State
counsel.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
Dated:22.05.2026
NR
8
Bail Application 1st No. 229 of 2026----- Ashok Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.