HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.2001 of 2024 Bunty Yadav ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Harshit Sanwal and Mr. Kaushal Pandey, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 248 of 2021, under Sections 302, 201, 120B IPC, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. A dead body of a woman was recovered from the forest on 24.05.2020. She was wife of the applicant. 4. It is the prosecution case that the applicant had relations with the sister of the deceased, therefore, he killed his wife. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no evidence against the applicant; the applicant is in custody since 27.05.2020; out of 19 witnesses, 3 have only been examined. One was examined in the year 2022, one in the year 2023 and last witness was examined in the year 2 2024. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. The chain is not complete. Even the recovery and the last seen evidence is not credible. 6. Learned State counsel would submit that on 24.05.2020, the deceased was seen going alongwith the applicant alongwith the railway line, which was witnessed by PW3. Thereafter, the dead body was recovered. He would submit that a bag containing the clothes of the deceased were also recovered from the jungle at the instance of the applicant on 28.05.2020 and PW3 Gagan Kamboj has identified that the deceased was carrying those clothes when she was going alongwith the applicant. 7. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings. 8. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. As per the prosecution, on 24.05.2020 at about 1:30 p.m., the deceased was seen going alongwith the applicant. Learned State counsel would submit that the motive has been derived out from the confession that has been made by the applicant before the police officers, who have already been examined as PW1 and PW2. Various questions would find answer during 3 trial as to why the deceased left her home with clothes? Where was she going carrying clothes in a bag with her husband as stated by PW3? What was the opportunity for the PW3 to identify the clothes which were in the bag, which were allegedly carried by the deceased? The speed of trial is pathetic. For the last three years, only three witnesses have been examined. 9. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 10. The bail application is allowed. 11. 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) 07.01.2025 Jitendra