Uttarakhand High Court
BA3/9/2025 of SURESH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 14 November 2025
OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Third Bail Application No. 09 of 2025 Suresh ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand .….Opposite Party Present:- Ms. Divya Jain, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra
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.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Third Bail Application No. 09 of 2025
Suresh
….....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
.….Opposite Party
Present:- Ms. Divya Jain, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant Suresh is in judicial custody in FIR No. 158 of 2020 dated 13.04.2020, under Section 302 IPC, P.S. Rishikesh, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.
2. This is third bail application of the applicant. His first and second bail applications have already been rejected on 16.11.2021 and 12.04.2023.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. According to the FIR, the deceased had illicit relations with the applicant. The informant had objected to it. On 04.04.2020, the deceased left her home, but she did not return. Thereafter, her dead body was recovered. The FIR was lodged by the husband of the deceased and he raised suspicion against the applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 14.04.2020; there are total 19 prosecution witnesses, out of which only 7 have been examined; it is a case of circumstantial evidence.
2
6. Learned State Counsel admits the factual narrations.
7. Having considered the period of incarceration and other attending factors, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
8. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
14.11.2025 Avneet/