HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No. 39 of 2025 Mangal Singh Negi ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Awanish Upadhyaya and Mr. Karthik Jayashankar, Advocates for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 211 of 2024, under Sections 61(2) and 80(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Doiwala, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused. 3. According to the FIR, the deceased and the son of the applicant were married on 16.11.2023, but soon after marriage, the deceased was harassed and tortured for and in connection with the demand of dowry. Finally, she committed suicide on 04.07.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it is not a case of dowry; the witnesses have stated that at the time of marriage, or prior to it, no demand of dowry 2 was made; the allegations are bald and vague; there is no specific demand as to who demanded what; the FIR is against the brother in law and mother in law of the deceased also, but they have been exonerated, and chargesheet has not been submitted against them; the husband of the deceased used to stay outstation; the applicant is the father in law of the deceased. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to bail. 5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the death occurred within a year of the marriage, which is other than under normal circumstances; the parents of the deceased have stated that the deceased was tortured for and in connection with the demand of dowry. 6. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding. 7. There is no specific allegations against anyone in the FIR or in the statements of the witnesses; general allegations of demand of dowry have been levelled against the applicant; his wife and his son, but his wife and son have been exonerated. 3 8. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 05.05.2025 Ravi Bisht