Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9768 (UTT)

RAJEEV KUMAR ALIAS VIKKY v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/1710/2025 · 2026-08-13

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures UKHC010143762025 2026:UHC:7238 COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/1710/2025 Rajeev Kumar Alias Vikky --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. Ms. Divya Jain, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The present applicant is facing trial in reference to an incident of gang rape and the victim was six year old minor and another victim is mother of the child. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in this particular case five persons have been charge sheeted and the bail application of other four co-accused have already been rejected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and the present applicant is languishing in jail since 29.06.2022 and all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined in December 2025, therefore, at this juncture, she is not pressing this bail application but the trial court may be directed to expedite the trial. 5. Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder for the State have not raised any objection on such submission. 6. In such view of the matter, the instant bail application is dismissed, however taking into consideration that the offence, alleged to be of gang rape, though it is completely the subject matter of trial, therefore, at this juncture, this Court refrain to give any observation because it will affect the trial, however for substantial justice particularly when all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined in December 2025 and the present applicant is languishing in jail since 29.06.2022 i.e. for almost four year, let the trial court may make all possible efforts to expedite the trial, as early as possible, preferably within four months. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant also apprised that whatever is the delay that is on the part of the prosecution since she has been informed that the concerned A.D.G.C. is repeatedly seeking adjournment. 8. In such view of the matter, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial, strictly, as per law without being influenced with the order of rejecting the bail of other co-accused, if possible within four months from the date of receipt of this order. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 13.08.2026 Arti