01Facts
The applicant, Marjeena, sought bail while in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 778 of 2026, registered at Police Station Kotwali Manglour, District Haridwar, for offences under Sections 103(1), 238(a), 61(2) and 140(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).
¶ 3The case arose from a missing-person report concerning the complainant’s son, who was alleged to have been missing since 22 August 2024; the complainant suspected the applicant, her husband and her brother-in-law of killing him.
¶ 5The State opposed bail but did not dispute that the body remained unrecovered or that the applicant had been in custody since 10 September 2024.
¶ 802Issues
i.Whether the applicant had made out a case for bail, having regard to the unrecovered body, the absence of direct evidence or recovery, the period of custody, and the stage and likely duration of the trial.
¶ 9–1003Law Applied
The Court considered the bail application in the context of the offences alleged under Sections 103(1), 238(a), 61(2) and 140(1) BNS.
¶ 3It applied a discretionary assessment of the circumstances relevant to release on bail, including the period of incarceration, completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the evidentiary circumstances raised by the applicant, and the anticipated delay in trial.
¶ 9–10The order cites no specific statutory bail provision or judicial precedent.
Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 103Section 238Section 61Section 140
04Reasoning
The Court noted that the complainant’s son’s body had not been recovered, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the applicant had been in custody since 10 September 2024.
¶ 9–10It treated the submissions concerning the absence of direct evidence and the lack of an incriminating recovery from the applicant as matters to be considered against the material collected during investigation, without determining their ultimate merits.
¶ 9Given the custody period, completion of the investigation and the likelihood that trial would not conclude in the near future, the Court found that the applicant had made out a case for bail.
¶ 1005Holding
The Court allowed the first bail application without expressing any opinion on the merits.
¶ 10–11It directed that the applicant be released on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
¶ 12Original Court PDF
MARJEENAvsSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
