2025:UHC:10167 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 / 1 3 0 3 / 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Prince Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Manisha Rana Singh, learned Deputy A.G. for the State. 3. Applicant–Rakesh Singh, who is in judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 172 of 2023, under Sections 302 and 304-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Initially an F.I.R. was lodged by the informant on 18.05.2023 alleging that his elder brother had solemnized the marriage of his daughter Reena (since deceased) with the present applicant in April 2021, as per Hindu rites and rituals. It is alleged that soon after the marriage, the applicant and his family members subjected the deceased to mental and physical harassment for dowry. It is further alleged that on 17.05.2023 at around 6:00 P.M., the applicant, as part of a conspiracy, informed the informant that the deceased was not opening the door of her room, and upon forcibly opening the door, Reena was found dead. On these allegations, the aforesaid F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and his family members. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that although the F.I.R. names all the in-laws of the deceased, including the husband, the Investigating Officer, after completion of the investigation, has filed charge-sheet only against the present applicant, who is the husband of the 2025:UHC:10167 deceased, and has exonerated all other family members named in the F.I.R. It is further submitted that the applicant and the deceased were residing separately at Kichha, and the applicant was employed at SIDCUL, Rudrapur; that no demand of dowry was ever made; and that the allegations have been levelled solely with the intention to falsely implicate the applicant. 7. It is stated that the applicant had gone to his workplace and upon returning home found the main gate locked from inside; that, the applicant made repeated calls to his wife but received no response; that he then forcibly entered the house and found his wife hanging; and that he immediately informed the family members about the incident. 8. It is further submitted that six prosecution witnesses i.e. PW1 Satyender Singh (informant), PW2 Babita (paternal aunt of the deceased), PW3 Chatrapal Singh (uncle of the deceased), PW4 Pushpender (real brother of the deceased), PW5 Bhawna (sister-in-law of the deceased/Bhabhi), and PW6 Geeta Chauhan (paternal aunt of the deceased) have been examined and all of them have turned hostile; that, none of these witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Certified copies of their statements have also been placed on record. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant is an innocent person and has falsely been implicated; that, applicant is in judicial custody since 20.05.2023; that, there is no likelihood of tampering with the evidence or misuse of bail; and that being a permanent resident of District Udham Singh Nagar, there is no possibility of his absconding. It is stated that the bail application filed before the court below was rejected on 13.05.2025. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the bail application having regard to the seriousness of the allegations but fairly 2025:UHC:10167 conceded that all six prosecution witnesses examined so far have turned hostile. It is also not disputed that the applicant is in judicial custody since 20.05.2023 and that his bail application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 13.05.2025. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, the Court notes that the F.I.R. dated 18.05.2023 alleges harassment for dowry and the suspicious death of the applicant’s wife Reena. However, after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed only against the applicant, and all other family members named in the F.I.R. have been exonerated. It further emerges from the record that six prosecution witnesses i.e. PW1 to PW6, all close relatives of the deceased have been examined before the trial court, and each of them has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. Certified copies of their depositions have been placed on record. 12. Having considered the rival submissions, the material on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. 13. Accordingly, the 1st bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. [ ( Alok Mahr a, J.) 17.11.2025 Mamta