Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1790/2025 of RITIK Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 15 June 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No. 1790 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mrs. Reema Rana, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Abhishek Joshi,
2026:UHC:4819
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
BA1 No. 1790 of 2025
Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
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.
1. Mrs. Reema Rana, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Abhishek Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. The present applicant ‘Ritik’ S/o Sudesh is praying for bail in reference to First Information Report dated 19.03.2025 bearing FIR No. 0176 of 2025, P.S .Pathri, District Haridwar, wherein, the present applicant along with one Mrs Ritu, the wife of the deceased Sukhpal Singh have been implicated for the offences punishable under sections 103(1), 61(2) of BNS, 2023.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and is languishing in jail since 22.03.2025 and as per the post-mortem report there is no sign of any injury mark on the body of the deceased and cause of death as shown is asphyxia due to smothering. She further argued that the present applicant has been implicated only on suspicion since he regularly talk with the wife of the deceased and there was a suspicion about illicit relationship of the applicant with the wife of the deceased. She further submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed and other co- accused Mrs. Ritu, the wife of the deceased, have already been enlarged on bail by the Trial Court, therefore, the applicant also deserve for bail.
5. Per contra, Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder, submits that the applicant was involved in the commission of crime, which is evident from the fact that 27 times on the date of incident he was in regular touch with the wife of the deceased telephonically and as per the CDR report even the last location of the applicant was found at about 5:15 AM at the location from where the dead body was recovered.
6. After hearing the arguments of learned
2026:UHC:4819 counsel for the parties and after perusing the counter affidavit as well as the counter affidavit of the Investigating Officer, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.
7. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 15.06.2026 PR