Uttarakhand High CourtCriminal LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

Woman Accused Of Killing Missing Man Gets Bail After Over 2 Years In Custody As Trial Is Not Likely To End Soon: Uttarakhand HC

MARJEENAv.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Woman Accused Of Killing Missing Man Gets Bail After Over 2 Years In Custody As Trial Is Not Likely To End Soon: Uttarakhand HC. MARJEENA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND. Uttarakhand High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

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.

The court held

The Court allowed the first bail application without expressing any opinion on the merits.

It also directed

It 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.

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”).

¶ 3

The 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.

¶ 5

The State opposed bail but did not dispute that the body remained unrecovered or that the applicant had been in custody since 10 September 2024.

¶ 8

02Issues

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.

¶ 9–10

03Law 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.

¶ 3

It 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.

¶ 9–10

The 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.

¶ 9–10

It 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.

¶ 9

Given 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.

¶ 10

05Holding

The Court allowed the first bail application without expressing any opinion on the merits.

¶ 10–11

It 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.

¶ 12
Uttarakhand High Court

Original Court PDF

MARJEENAvsSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Uttarakhand High Court · October 28, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment