Uttarakhand HC Grants Bail To Man In Missing Woman Case; Initial Report Did Not Name Him, Woman Remains Untraced

The applicant, Bijay Prasad, was in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/FIR No. 1 of 2025, registered at Police Station Berinag, District Pithoragarh, for alleged offences under Sections 87 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The missing person’s father-in-law lodged a missing report on 12 September 2025; the applicant was not named in it but was later charge-sheeted.

The applicant argued that the case against him was based on suspicion, that the missing person had not been recovered, that co-accused with allegedly more serious roles had been granted bail, and that he had been in custody since 11 December 2025.

The State opposed bail but did not dispute the non-recovery, the co-accused’s release on bail, or the applicant’s custody since that date.

The alleged offences were under Sections 87 and 238 of the BNS.

The judgment identifies no specific bail provision, precedent, or separately articulated legal test; it determines the application on the overall facts and circumstances of the case.

The Court considered that the missing person had not been recovered, the applicant was not named in the initial missing report, and co-accused whose alleged roles were stated to be more serious had already been granted bail.

On those circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, it concluded that the applicant had made out a case for bail.

The applicant must not threaten, induce, or influence persons acquainted with the case or tamper with evidence; must cooperate with the investigation and trial and appear before the Trial Court unless exempted; must not leave India without prior permission; and must provide and update his residential address and mobile number.

The prosecution may seek cancellation of bail if any condition is breached.