Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7345 (UTT)

HARIT SINGH ALIAS BITTU v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

BA1/945/2025 · 2025-07-03

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:5711 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1 No. 945 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Lalit Sharma with Ms. Anmol Sandhu and Ms. Sameeksha Negi, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Harit Singh @ Bittu’ S/o Shish Pal Singh is praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 23.02.2025 bearing FIR No. 76 of 2025 P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar, wherein, the present applicant along with his father and mother were implicated for the offence punishable under Section 80(2) of BNS, 2023. On this FIR during investigation Shishpal Singh and Suman both the parents of the present applicant, have been exonerated and only the applicant has been chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Section 108 of BNS, 2023. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant married with the deceased on 12.03.2019 and from this marriage one male child was born, which is at present about 5 years old. He further submits that there was no any dispute in between the applicant and the deceased, which is evident from the fact that the applicant is a trustee of an institution namely “Balaji Educational Trust” and both the applicant and his wife were running the institute as a trustee of the trust. 5. It is also contended that the applicant and his parents had purchased a land of 11 Bigha in the name of the deceased and transferred one house in the name of the deceased, therefore, the allegations as alleged in the FIR was completely false wherein it was alleged that on demand of dowry the deceased was harassed and she subsequently commit suicide. He submits that the false implication of the applicant is also evident from the fact that the FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased with the allegation of demand of dowry but no chargesheet was filed for the offence under Section 80(2) of BNS, 2023 since there was no such evidence but based on two suicidal notes of the deceased the chargesheet has been filed for the offence punishable under 2025:UHC:5711 Section 108 of BNS, 2023. He submits that the two suicidal notes are in Roman Lipi and it creates also a doubt on their genuineness though the same were sent to the Forensic; however, without getting FSL report the chargesheet has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.02.2025 and since as per the prosecution the investigation has already been completed and the chargesheet has been filed, therefore, there is no need of the custodial interrogation of the present applicant. 7. Apart from this, he submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history except one which relates to charge of rash and negligent driving in which he is already bailed out. 8. On the other side, learned A.G.A. Mr. Pankaj Joshi submits that after collecting all credible evidences the chargesheet has been filed under Section 108 of BNS, 2023 based on the suicidal notes; however, he fairly submits that the FSL report is still awaited and the same can be produced before the Trial Court. 9. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that the investigation is already completed against the applicant by submitting the chargesheet and as such there is no need of the custodial interrogation of the present applicant, therefore, this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 10. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant ‘Harit Singh @ Bittu’ be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 03.07.2025 PR 2025:UHC:5711