IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Third Bail Application No.11 of 2023 Akhilesh Mohan Bahuguna ......Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Presence: Ms. Neetu Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral) The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Akhilesh Mohan Bahuguna, seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 19 of 2020, registered at Police Station Rani Pokhari, District Dehradun, for offenses punishable under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the State. Perused the records. 3. The applicant seeks bail on the ground that he has been in jail for more than four years. It is further contended that two co-accused have already been granted bail, though it is admitted that their roles were different, as the applicant’s actions resulted in the death of the deceased. The applicant also argues that out of 22 witnesses, only 9 have been examined, and most of the star witnesses have already testified. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State, Mr. S.C. Dumka, strongly opposes the bail 1 application, contending that it is a matter of time before the trial reaches its conclusion. The prosecution submits that this is the third bail application (BA3), and there are no fresh grounds on which bail may be granted. It is further pointed out that the applicant’s bail applications have been previously rejected twice, with detailed reasoning by coordinate benches, and the present circumstances do not warrant any deviation. 5. Upon a careful examination of the case, this Court finds that the nature of the offense involves death as a result of provocation, wherein the applicant’s actions directly caused the demise of the deceased. The distinction between the applicant and the co-accused, who were granted bail, is evident, as their roles did not result in the fatal outcome. 6. Furthermore, the court observes that only 9 out of 22 witnesses have been examined, it must be noted that the trial is proceeding and a substantial part of the prosecution evidence remains to be recorded. The argument that most star witnesses have been examined does not, in itself, justify bail, as other critical witnesses, including those involved in forensic and medical examination, are yet to testify. 7. The applicant has not brought forth any new or compelling grounds that would justify reconsideration of his bail application, particularly when the coordinate benches have previously rejected bail after detailed consideration of the facts and evidence. 8. In light of the seriousness of the allegations, the stage of trial, and the absence of fresh grounds, this Court finds no justification for granting bail to the applicant at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 03.03.2025