2026:UHC:3334 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/1941/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura and Mr. Dushyant Maginali, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The present is the first bail application moved on behalf of the applicant seeking grant of regular bail in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No. 358 of 2024 (Sessions Trial No. 03 of 2025), pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramnagar, District Nainital, for the offences punishable under Section 80(2) of the B.N.S., registered at Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the F.I.R. has been lodged by the complainant, who is the father of the deceased, alleging therein that the marriage of the applicant with the deceased was solemnized on 23.06.2023. It is alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and that on 07.12.2024 she died by hanging. It is further alleged that after her death, the accused persons proceeded to cremate the body without informing the complainant. 6. Learned counsel would further submit that the F.I.R. was lodged against the husband (applicant herein) as well as the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the 2026:UHC:3334 deceased. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet against the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is pointed out that the co-accused, namely the parents of the applicant, have already been granted bail by the trial court vide orders dated 01.05.2025 and 05.05.2025. It is further submitted that the statement of the father, mother, brother and sister of the deceased were recorded, wherein they alleged that on the fateful day the deceased had informed them telephonically that she was being beaten by her in-law and was being asked to bring a car, buffalo and cash. 7. He would further submit that in his statement, the applicant has stated that on the date of the incident he had gone to the forest and in afternoon, he received information that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging. Learned counsel submits that in the statement of the complainant and the brother of the deceased, it has been stated that at the time of marriage and prior thereto, no demand of dowry was made by the applicant or his family members. 8. It is argued that the essential ingredients of Section 80(2) of the B.N.S. are not satisfied in the present case, inasmuch as there is no cogent material to establish that ‘‘soon before her death’’ the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry. Learned counsel further submit that the applicant is ink judicial custody since 14.01.2025; that, the post-mortem report, as proved by PW-3 (Medical Officer), indicates that the death was caused due to hanging and there are no external injuries suggestive of any struggle or physical assault; that, the deceased was of sensitive disposition and was undergoing treatment; that, the applicant is stated to be a permanent resident of District Nainital 2026:UHC:3334 and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with evidence. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application, though she fairly admits that the applicant is in judicial custody since 14.01.2025 and that the co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the court below. 10. Having considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record, this Court finds that the post- mortem report prima facie indicates death by hanging without any external injuries; and the question as to whether the ingredients of Section 80(2) B.N.S., particularly the requirement of cruelty or harassment ‘‘soon before death’’ in connection with dowry demand, are satisfied, is a matter to be examined during trial. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. 12. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant, Rajkumar Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Alok Mahra, J.) 02.05.2026 Mamta