[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
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
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
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.
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
