Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/2512/2024 of KANCHAN Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 28 July 2026
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010204492024 2026:UHC:6514 UKHC010204492024 BA1/2512/2024 Kanchan --Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010204492024
2026:UHC:6514
UKHC010204492024 BA1/2512/2024 Kanchan --Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand --Respondent
Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Mr. M. K. Ray, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Ms. Rangoli Purohit, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. The present applicant – Ms. Kanchan W/o Late Chandra Prakash, is praying for bail in reference to FIR dated 23.05.2024 bearing FIR No.274 of 2024, Police Station Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, lodged by the father of the deceased, (husband of the present applicant), wherein, the present applicant has been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated only on the suspect that she has illicit relationship with another person she has been implicated, though the FIR itself reveals that the husband of the applicant was alcoholic due to which always there was some hot talks in between the applicant and her husband (deceased). He submits that no such arms for killing the deceased was used rather the prosecution case is that on the date of the incident, the applicant by using “Tawa” griddle, the grievous injuries were caused on the most vital part of the husband, due to which he died.
5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the investigation has already been completed and the trial has been commenced and admittedly the applicant is the wife of the deceased having two children from their marriage, and based on the suspicion that the applicant was having an illicit relationship, the chargesheet has been filed. He submits that the present applicant is languishing in jail since last more than two years, and she is mother of two children and she has no criminal antecedents, therefore, the applicant be released on bail.
6. On the other side, Ms. Rangoli Purohit, learned AGA, vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that there are sufficient evidence against the applicant and the FSL report also supports the case of the prosecution, however, she has not disputed that the applicant is wife of the deceased and is languishing in jail since last more than two years, having two children and she has no criminal antecedents.
7. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, and taking into consideration that applicant has already suffered a prolong incarceration since last more than two years she is languishing in jail and she has no criminal antecedents, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail.
8. Accordingly without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant – “Kanchan”, be released on bail, on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
28.07.2026 Nitesh/