Uttarakhand High Court
Vidhu Rathi vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 July, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL. COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
Date or directions and
No.
Registrar's order with
Signatures
UKHC010013772026
BA2/20/2026
Vidhu Rathi --Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand --Respondent
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the
applicant.
2. Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder, for the
State of Uttarakhand.
3. The instant second bail application is moved on
behalf of the applicant – Vidhu Rathi S/o Late Joginder
Rathi, seeking regular bail in reference to FIR dated
24.04.2024 bearing Case Crime No.0329 of 2024, Police
Station Manglaur, District Haridwar, wherein, as many
as seven persons, namely, Anshul, Rajesh, Dheeraj,
Arpit, Kulveer, Vidhu Master (present applicant) and
Nakul have been implicated for the offences punishable
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 452, 504, 506, 34
and 120-B of IPC.
4. The first Bail Application No.1599 of 2024 was
rejected on 13.02.2025.
5. Now the instant second bail application is moved
primarily on the ground that the co-accused – Kunal,
Kulveer, Dheraj and Rajesh, have already been enlarged
on bail and the present applicant is languishing in jail
since 03.06.2024, and up till date out of in total 30
prosecution witnesses only six witnesses have been
examined, which indicates that trial is moving at a slow
pace and there is no possibility that trial would be
expedited soon, and the applicant have no criminal
antecedents.
6. On merit, it is argued by the learned counsel for
the applicant that as per CDR details, the applicant was
not present at the place of incident and was far away
since he is serving as a Teacher in primary institution in
Tehri Garhwal and the place of incident is far away at a
distance of about 60 km at “Gurukul Narsan”, in District
Haridwar. In addition to this, he also submits that no
ground of arrest was provided at the time of arrest.
7. Finally, he concluded his argument by submitting
that since the applicant already suffered a long
incarceration and there is no possibility that the trial
would be expedited soon and the other co-accused have
been enlarged on bail, therefore, the applicant be
released on bail.
8. Per contra, on the other side, Mr. Vijay Khanduri,
learned Brief Holder for the State vehemently opposed
the bail application by submitting that on the date of the
incident, an unlawful assembly consisting of the co-
accused persons entered the premises of the deceased
and at the time of incident, the co-accused Rajesh was
armed with Fawda, Dheraj was armed with Balkati and
Arpit and Kuldeep were armed with Lathi and Danda,
and the co-accused Vidhu Master, handed over a 315
bore country made pistol to one Nakul co-accused, who
then opened fire upon the deceased Bharat, causing his
death. He also not disputed that the applicant has no
previous criminal antecedents and languishing in jail
since 03.06.2024.
9. After hearing the rival submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties in the light of the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case on record, it is true that
the offence as alleged is a serious offence and is a
heinous crime, however, this Court cannot overlook the
constitutional and procedural safeguard. The contention
that the applicant was not informed of the grounds of
arrest remains a significant procedural lacunae.
Furthermore, the electronic evidence in the form of CDR
location report collected by the concerned Investigating
Officer, is completely a subject matter of the trial.
Crucially, the applicant has been incarcerated for over 26
months since he is languishing in jail since 03.06.2024,
incarcerated for over two years, and out of 30
prosecution witnesses only 6 prosecution witnesses has
been examined so far. In view of the law settled by the
Hon’ble Apex Court, the continuous pre-trial detention
cannot be turned in punitive measure, if the trial is
significantly delayed, the other co-accused persons,
sharing the similar position of being part of the alleged
unlawful assembly are already on bail and the applicant
has clean criminal antecedents. Further, there is no
material on record to suggest that the applicant, if
released, will tamper with the remaining evidence or
flee from justice.
10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on
the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that
the applicant deserves for bail. Accordingly, the instant
second bail application is allowed.
11. Let the applicant – “Vidhu Rathi”, be released on
bail, on his executing a personal bond to the sum of
Rs.30,000/- and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of
the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
“(a) The applicant shall join trial court
proceedings on each and every date without
seeking any unnecessary adjournment.
(b) The applicant shall not influence,
threaten or coerce any prosecution witness,
directly or indirectly.
(c) The applicant shall surrender his
passport (if any) to the Trial Court and shall
not leave the country without leave of the
trial court.
(d) Trial Court will not be influenced with
the observations as above and proceed as
per law.”
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
24.07.2026
Nitesh/
