Uttarakhand HC Grants Bail To Murder-Trial Accused After More Than 2 Years In Custody, With Only 6 Of 25 Witnesses Examined

Ashok Kumar faced trial in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 2025 for offences under Sections 120-B, 201 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, arising from Case Crime No. 0337 of 2024.

The prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence, and the deceased’s body had not been recovered.

The applicant’s first bail application was dismissed on 17 December 2025, and his special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 23 April 2026.

In this second bail application, he relied principally on his incarceration since 20 October 2024, the lack of substantial progress in the trial, and the absence of prior criminal history.

Of 25 prosecution witnesses, six had been examined; the State acknowledged that the recent arrest of two co-accused could require those witnesses to be cross-examined again.

The applicant was charged under Sections 120-B, 201 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court applied the principle that pre-trial incarceration is neither warranted nor necessary where appropriate conditions can safeguard legitimate prosecutorial concerns, relying on Mahesh Chandra Joshi v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 INSC 1141.

It also observed that the merits of the prosecution case should not be determined at the bail stage.

The Court noted that the applicant had been in custody since 20 October 2024, had no criminal antecedents, and that the trial had made limited progress, with only six of 25 prosecution witnesses examined.

The State’s concern that the applicant was allegedly the main accused and might interfere with the trial was acknowledged; however, the State also accepted that the trial was unlikely to be expedited and that stringent conditions could be imposed.

Applying the principle against unnecessary pre-trial incarceration, the Court concluded that the applicant’s circumstances justified bail without expressing any view on the merits.

Bail was subject to surrendering any passport within three days, attending every trial date without seeking unnecessary adjournments, and not threatening witnesses or tampering with evidence.

The Court clarified that the order would not operate as a precedent for the co-accused, whose applications would be considered independently on their merits.