HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Fifth Bail Application No. 2 of 2024 Ashok Kumar ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.152 of 2020, under Section 302, 201 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Sahaspur, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused. 3. This is the fifth bail application. The first bail application, being BA1 No.1895 of 2020, was rejected on 23.06.2021. The second bail application, being BA2 No.139 of 2021, was rejected on 11.04.2022. The third bail application, being BA3 No.35 of 2022, was rejected on 22.12.2022. The fourth bail application, being BA4 No.02 of 2024, was also rejected on 04.03.2024. 4. The deceased, Phool Chand, was found dead. He was killed by strangulation. The FIR records that the 2 applicant had illicit relations with the wife of the deceased. Therefore, the applicant, along with co-accused, had killed him. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it is a case based on circumstantial evidence; a phone was allegedly recovered at the instance of the applicant, but it was recovered from an open place; all the witnesses are police personnel; applicant is in custody since 15.05.2020; out of 20 witnesses, only 10 witnesses have been examined; there are less chances of trial being concluded in near future. Even it is argued that there is no evidence to suggest that the mobile, allegedly recovered at the instance of the applicant, belongs to the deceased. 6. Learned State Counsel admits that the applicant is in custody for a long. She also admits that only 10 witnesses have been examined out of 20 witnesses. She would submit that there are statements of the witnesses, which suggest that the applicant was frequent visitor in the house of the deceased, and he had illicit relations with the wife of the deceased. She would further submit that the mobile phone of the deceased was recovered from the applicant. 3 7. The Court wanted to know from learned State Counsel as to how could it be said that the mobile phone belongs to the applicant? Learned State Counsel would submit that, as such, there is no evidence to that effect. 8. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances, which have already been indicated against the applicant, have been narrated hereinabove. The applicant is in custody for more than 5 years now. Till date, only 10 witnesses have been examined. 9. Having considered, 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 in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 05.06.2025 Ravi Bisht