Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand on 21 May, 2026
2026:UHC:3987
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
8th Bail Application No. 2 of 2025
21st May, 2026
Vineet Sharma Alias Cheenu Pandit .......Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand .......Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Ms. Divya Jain, Shweta Jain and Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel
for the applicant.
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General along with Mr.
Deepak Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J. (Oral)
The present bail application has been moved
seeking grant of regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.
115 of 2016 (Sessions Trial No.43 of 2017 now S.T. No.175
of 2016) under Sections 302, 34 of I.P.C. and Section 5/27
of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station
Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
3. This is the eighth bail application moved on
behalf of the applicant. The first bail application was
dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 31.10.2018;
the second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on
05.12.2018; the third bail application was rejected on
01.04.2019; the fourth bail application was rejected on
01.11.2021; the fifth bail application was dismissed as
1
2026:UHC:3987
withdrawn on 24.09.2022; the sixth bail application was
rejected on 02.03.2023; and the seventh bail application was
rejected on 18.11.2024. It has further been brought to the
notice of this Court that the Special Leave Petition preferred
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against rejection of bail
also came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.02.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit
that, as per the prosecution case set forth in the First
Information Report, on 06.05.2016 at about 7:00 p.m., co-
accused Rajeev Sharma allegedly took the informant’s
nephew, namely Akash Tyagi, along with him. It is alleged
that when the deceased did not return home till about 10:30
p.m., his sister, namely Suman, repeatedly contacted him on
his mobile phone but no response was received. Thereafter,
the informant along with Amit Verma allegedly proceeded in
search of the deceased and at about 10:45 p.m., upon
reaching near Classic Bar situated at Ramnagar Chowk,
they allegedly found the motorcycle of the deceased parked
outside the said establishment. It is further alleged that
upon entering the bar premises, the informant witnessed the
present applicant, namely Vineet Sharma @ Cheenu Pandit,
firing upon Akash Tyagi, while co-accused Shagun Sharma
and Rajeev Sharma were allegedly standing nearby armed
with pistols; that, after completion of investigation, charge-
sheet came to be submitted on 02.11.2016 and cognizance
thereupon was taken on the same date; that, the charges
2
2026:UHC:3987
against the accused persons were framed on 26.07.2017;
that, as many as sixteen witnesses have already been
examined by the prosecution.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would further
submit that the case of the applicant and the co-accused
were consolidated on 26.07.2017 as S.T. No.175 of 2026 =;
that, the applicant had earlier moved an application under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of PW-14 for further
cross-examination, which was allowed by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.12.2019; that,
thereafter, another application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
seeking recall of PW-1 and PW-2 was preferred; that, since
PW-1 had expired, the said application came to be rejected
by the learned trial court; that, aggrieved thereby, the
applicant approached this Court and a Coordinate Bench,
vide order dated 18.07.2022, stayed further proceedings of
Sessions Trial No.175 of 2016; that, till date no application
for vacation of the aforesaid interim order has been moved
on behalf of the State; that, subsequently, vide order dated
13.08.2025, a Coordinate Bench permitted further cross-
examination of PW-2 and, pursuant thereto, PW-2 has since
been cross-examined by the defence.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit
that despite repeated opportunities, PW-14 has not been
produced by the prosecution either physically or through
video conferencing for the purpose of cross-examination;
3
2026:UHC:3987
that, from the year 2019 till 2025, approximately fifty dates
have been fixed by the learned trial court for cross-
examination of PW-14, however, on most of the dates the
said witness remained absent and could not be secured by
the prosecution. It is also submitted that an additional
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of PW-6
is still pending consideration before the learned trial court.
7. Learned counsel would further submit that the
applicant is in judicial custody since 13.07.2016 and has
undergone incarceration for nearly ten years as an
undertrial prisoner; that, applicant was granted short-term
bail on four occasions and the period of temporary bail was
extended on three occasions; however, during the entire
period of temporary release, there has been no allegation of
misuse of liberty or violation of any condition imposed by the
Court; that, the applicant duly surrendered before the
concerned authorities within the stipulated time on every
occasion; that, the continued incarceration of the applicant
for an indefinite period, coupled with the inordinate delay in
conclusion of trial, amounts to violation of the fundamental
right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. It is submitted that the delay in trial proceedings is
attributable primarily to the prosecution, which has failed to
secure the presence of material witnesses despite repeated
opportunities granted by the learned trial court, and there
appears to be no likelihood of conclusion of trial in the near
4
2026:UHC:3987
future.
8. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned
counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vaibhav Singh
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh passed in Petition for Special
Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.7416 of 2026, wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court observed that where an undertrial
prisoner has remained incarcerated for more than nine years
and the trial has not concluded, constitutional courts are
duty-bound to safeguard the fundamental right to speedy
trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that however
grave the offence may be, an accused cannot be detained in
custody for an indefinite period for no fault attributable to
him. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgments
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rupe Bahadur @
Sanki @ Robin Vs. State of West Bengal, Balwinder Singh
Vs. State of Punjab & Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4354,
Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, and
Kattavellai @ Devakar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu decided on
15.07.2025, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that
prolonged incarceration of an undertrial prisoner and undue
delay in conclusion of trial are relevant considerations for
grant of bail and that punitive detention before conviction
cannot be permitted to become indefinite.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant would further
5
2026:UHC:3987
submit that the charge-sheet has already been filed and,
therefore, no custodial interrogation of the applicant is now
required; that, there is no likelihood of tampering with the
prosecution evidence; that, the conduct of the applicant
during incarceration as well as during the period of
temporary bail has remained satisfactory; that, the applicant
is a permanent resident of District Haridwar and there is no
likelihood of his absconding or fleeing from the course of
justice; that, the applicant is ready and willing to furnish
adequate bail bonds and reliable sureties to the satisfaction
of the Court and undertakes to abide by all conditions that
may be imposed while enlarging him on bail.
10. Per contra, Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the State would vehemently
oppose the bail application contending that serious
allegations pertaining to the offence of murder have been
levelled against the applicant; that, the applicant is a
history-sheeter and as many as thirty-six criminal cases are
alleged to be pending against him; that, in the event the
applicant is enlarged on bail, the same may adversely affect
public order and there exists a likelihood of gang rivalry and
disturbance of peace in the locality where the applicant
resides and adjoining areas. It is also submitted that PW-14
is a police official and, owing to official exigencies, his
examination/cross-examination is not likely to take place in
the near future.
6
2026:UHC:3987
11. To this, learned counsel for the applicant would
submit that out of the aforesaid thirty-six criminal cases,
the applicant has already been acquitted in approximately
thirty cases and in the remaining cases he has been
enlarged on bail by the competent courts. It is submitted
that notwithstanding the gravity of allegations, the applicant
is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of prolonged
incarceration and delay in conclusion of trial, in view of the
settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
upon perusal of the material brought on record, this Court
finds that the applicant has remained in judicial custody
since 13.07.2016 and has undergone incarceration for
nearly ten years as an undertrial prisoner. It is also not
disputed that the trial has yet not concluded and some of
the material witnesses are yet to be cross-examined. The
record further reveals that the applicant was granted short
term bail on several occasions and there is no allegation of
misuse of liberty during the said period.
13. The right to speedy trial is an integral facet of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and prolonged
incarceration of an undertrial prisoner without likelihood of
early conclusion of trial cannot be countenanced
indefinitely. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case and considering the overall facts and
7
2026:UHC:3987
circumstances, the nature of accusations, the period of
incarceration already undergone by the applicant, and the
delay in conclusion of trial, this Court is of the considered
view that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of
bail.
14. Accordingly, the present bail application is
allowed.
15. Let the applicant, namely Vineet Sharma @
Cheenu Pandit, be released on bail in connection with F.I.R.
No.115 of 2016, under Sections 302 and 34 I.P.C. and
Section 5/27 of the Arms Act, Police Station Gangnahar,
District Haridwar, on his furnishing a personal bond and
two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the following
conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the learned Trial
Court on each and every date fixed, unless his personal
attendance is exempted in accordance with law, and
shall cooperate with the trial proceedings without seeking
unnecessary adjournments.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat, promise, or attempt to influence any
prosecution witness or any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from
disclosing the truth before the Court or any investigating
agency.
(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(iv) The applicant shall not leave the territorial limits of
the State of Uttarakhand without prior permission of the
8
2026:UHC:3987
learned Trial Court concerned.
(v) The applicant shall deposit his passport, if any, before
the learned Trial Court forthwith. In the event the
applicant does not possess any passport, he shall file an
affidavit to that effect before the learned Trial Court.
(vi) The applicant shall maintain peace and good
behaviour during the period of bail and shall not involve
himself in any criminal activity of whatsoever nature.
(vii) The applicant shall furnish his mobile number and
residential address before the learned Trial Court and
shall keep the same operational at all times during the
pendency of trial. In case of any change in address or
contact details, the same shall be intimated to the Court
concerned forthwith.
(viii) In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid
conditions, it shall be open to the prosecution to move an
appropriate application seeking cancellation of bail before
the competent Court, in accordance with law.
16. This Court cannot overlook the serious situation
emerging from the record of the present case. It is apparent
that PW-14, who is a police official serving under the State,
has failed to appear before the learned Trial Court for his
cross-examination on more than fifty dates spread over a
long period of time. Due to his repeated non-appearance, the
trial proceedings have remained stalled for a considerable
duration. Such conduct on the part of a prosecution
witness, particularly a public servant who is expected to
assist the Court in the administration of criminal justice,
has caused undue delay in the conclusion of the trial. The
repeated adjournments have seriously affected the right of
the accused to a fair and speedy trial guaranteed under
9
2026:UHC:3987
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, the
complainant/victim side has also been made to suffer
prolonged delay, uncertainty, and mental hardship on
account of the pendency of the proceedings.
17. This Court is further of the considered opinion
that prolonged delay in criminal trials on account of
avoidable adjournments and repeated absence of witnesses
causes prejudice not only to the accused but also to the
victims, witnesses, and society at large. The constitutional
mandate of speedy justice requires all stakeholders,
including the investigating agency, prosecuting authorities,
and the Trial Courts, to act with due diligence and ensure
that criminal proceedings are conducted efficiently and
concluded within a reasonable time in accordance with law.
18. Accordingly, the Court of learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Roorkee, District
Haridwar/Special Court concerned, before whom Sessions
Trial No.175 of 2016 is pending, is directed to ensure the
presence of PW-14 on the next date fixed and on all
subsequent dates, if required, for the purpose of completion
of his cross-examination. In the event PW-14 again fails to
appear without sufficient cause, the learned Trial Court
shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive measures in
accordance with law and shall also recommend initiation of
suitable departmental/disciplinary proceedings against the
concerned official before the competent authority.
10
2026:UHC:3987
19. Since the Sessions Trial pertains to the year
2016 and nearly ten years have elapsed, the learned Trial
Court is further directed to make all possible endeavours to
conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a
reasonable period, without granting unnecessary
adjournments to either of the parties.
20. The prosecution authorities as well as all police
officials concerned throughout the State are directed to
extend full assistance and necessary cooperation to the
learned Trial Courts in securing the presence of prosecution
witnesses and ensuring due execution of summons,
warrants and other coercive processes, so that long-pending
criminal trials may be concluded expeditiously and brought
to their logical conclusion in accordance with law.
21. The Registrar General shall circulate a copy of
this order to all District Judges in the State as well as to the
Director General of Police, who shall further communicate
the same to all Senior Superintendents of
Police/Superintendents of Police and concerned police
authorities for strict compliance.
Digitally signed by MAMTA
(ALOK MAHRA,J.)
MA
RANI
21.05.2026
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
Mamta ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
MTA
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf4
6f244f3e584af1449e430ef9
00bf09a6d67ebbd6426713
29b, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f
RANI
1d9cabfd54852c9e68911c
a8b66dd26690a191648ab5
d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA
RANI
Date: 2026.05.22 14:01:34
+05’30’
11
