Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Renu vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 February, 2026
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
2026:UHC:1194
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
24TH FEBRUARY, 2026
FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 276 of 2026
Smt. Renu .....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Amit Satyawali, Advocate
with Smt. Gyan Mati Kushwaha,
Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Brief
Holder.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.
Applicant - Smt. Renu is in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) read with Section 3(5), Section 61(2) and Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Case Crime No.575 of 2024, registered at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
2. As per the respondent-State, Sumit, aged about 24 years, the husband of the informant Smt. Renu (applicant), was missing since 14.11.2024. A report was registered on 21.11.2024 under Section 140(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against unknown person. On the same day, i.e. 21.11.2024, an application was given by one Raju, the father of Sumit, to the police alleging that Sumit's wife has an illicit relationship with Ganesh (co-accused). On 21.11.2024, the police arrested three co-accused Ganesh, Vansh and Deepak Kohli on a secret information. They confessed before the police that they committed murder of Sumit along with 1 2026:UHC:1194 Shivam alias Judi (co-accused), Govinda (co-accused) and Renu (applicant). On 22.11.2024, the police recovered the dead body of Sumit from a pit based on the information provided by Ganesh Chandra, Vansh and Deepak Kohli. The inquest proceedings and the post-mortem examination of the dead body were conducted on 22.11.2024. According to the post-mortem report, the cause of death was asphyxia due to anti-mortem strangulation. The viscera was preserved.
3. The co-accused - Shivam alias Judi was arrested on 23.11.2024. He told the police that Ganesh Chandra, the co-accused, and Sumit's wife-Smt. Renu (applicant) were in love relationship. Sumit had knowledge of this fact. Therefore, he used to beat her. He further told the police that Sumit was called in the night of 14.11.2024. He was given liquor. He got drunk, then Ganesh Chandra hit him on his head with a beer bottle. Govinda (co-accused) and Deepak (co-accused) strangled him and he (co-accused Shivam alias Judi) held his leg. Sumit was murdered. His dead body was thrown into a river. He along with Ganesh Chandra, Vansh, Govinda and Deepak had taken the dead body out of the river in the night of 16.11.2024 and buried the dead body in a pit. He further told the police that two shovels were used to bury the dead body. He had hidden a shovel in the bushes and Govinda (co- accused) took one shovel with him. The police recovered a shovel at the behest of the co-accused Shivam alias Judi.
4. The applicant was arrested on 22.11.2024. She had given a statement to the police that she wanted to marry 2 2026:UHC:1194 Ganesh. Sumit used to beat her after taking alcohol. A plan was prepared to murder Sumit and he was murdered as per that plan.
5. Heard Mr. Amit Satywali, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder for the respondent.
6. Mr. Amit Satyawali, Advocate, has contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. She had lodged a missing report of her husband. Police have wrongly recorded the statement of the applicant. Applicant had not given the said statement to the police. The allegations made by the father of the deceased are baseless. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. Co-accused Shivam alias Judi, co-accused Govind Singh alias Govinda and co- accused Deepak Kohli have already been granted regular bail by this Court. Applicant is a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar, and, she is in custody since 22.11.2024.
7. Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Brief Holder has opposed the bail application orally.
8. Bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. 3
2026:UHC:1194
9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.
10. The Bail Application is allowed.
11. Let the applicant- Smt. Renu be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Date: 24.02.2026 JKJ/Pant 4