2025:UHC:2561 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/333/2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. M.K. Ray, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Present applicant Dinesh Gangwar is praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 04.09.2023, bearing FIR No. 0071 of 2023 registered at P.S. Zhankaiya, District Udham Singh Nagar wherein the present applicant has been implicated for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The applicant married with the deceased five years back from the date of the incident. He submits that there is no evidence with regard to the demand of dowry and most of the independent witnesses who were examined and are neighbour of the applicant have denied this fact that there was any issue of demand of dowry. Apart from this, he submits that as per the statement of the I.O. there was no suicidal note and it is purely a case of hanging. He submits that those independent witnesses in their examination submits that there was quarrel in between the applicant and the deceased which in fact is a daily routine and that may be a reason the wife of the applicant committed suicide by hanging. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since there is no evidence with regard to the demand of dowry, therefore, the offence punishable under 2025:UHC:2561 Section 304B IPC is not made out. Apart from this he submits that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR since the deceased committed suicide on 02.06.2023 but the FIR has been lodged on 04.09.2023 by the mother of the deceased that too on an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in which the concerned Magistrate ordered for the registration of the FIR. He submits that in the preliminary inquiry which was carried out by the police official there was no evidence of demand of dowry and that was the reason the FIR was not lodged and this appears to be a case of false implication. 6. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the charge sheet has been filed in a wrong premise. There was no proof with regard to the demand of dowry and as per the mandate of Section 304B IPC there should be a demand of dowry. 7. On the other side, Mr. Latwal, learned A.G.A. seriously opposed the bail application and submits that the conduct of the present applicant being husband of the deceased appears to be doubtful since death of the deceased was unnatural but no attempt was made by the present applicant being husband for lodging the FIR. He also submits that in respect of unnatural death that too by way of hanging why the FIR was not lodged, this is the subject matter of the trial therefore no comment can be made on this. He further submits that since the FIR was registered on the basis of the order passed by the Magistrate on an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the mother of the deceased and after thorough investigation and also further taking into consideration the statement of the independent witness, charge sheet was filed. Apart from this, he further referred clause 7 of the FIR 2025:UHC:2561 wherein there is a reference of one person, namely, Kundan Kanyal who support the case of the prosecution particularly with regard to the demand of dowry. 8. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration the conduct of the present applicant, this Court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve for bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 05.04.2025 Parul 2025:UHC:2561