2026:UHC:4400 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/380/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Pratiroop Pande, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Applicant – Pankaj Giri, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 606 of 2025 (S.T. No.162 of 2025), under Section 80(2) of BNS, registered at P.S.- Kotwali, District Haridwar, has sought her release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. In this case, a complaint was filed by the mother of the deceased on 07.09.2025, in which, it was alleged that the applicant and all the in-laws of the deceased were continuously harassing the deceased, who happened to be her daughter ever since she got married with the brother of the applicant. It is further alleged that on the fateful day of 06.09.2025, they got a call from the deceased that her in- laws are beating her very badly. They reached there and found the deceased hanging. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is 2026:UHC:4400 innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the case; that, before lodging of the FIR in question, there is no earlier complaint or FIR lodged by her or the complainant regarding demand of dowry against the applicant or her family members; that, as such, the provisions of Section 80(2) of BNS are not attracted in the present case as there is no live nexus between the demand for dowry (cruelty/harassment) and the act of suicide; that, there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was ever harassed for the demand of dowry. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that, during the course of trial, the mother of the deceased has been examined as P.W.-1 and the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the deceased has been examined as P.W.-2 and both the prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed that the applicant never made any demand for dowry from the deceased and also stated that the applicant used to take proper care of the deceased and also fulfil her wishes; that, both witnesses have also unequivocally stated that the applicant neither subjected the deceased to physical assault nor treated her with cruelty or abuse. 8. Learned counsel would further submit that a careful perusal of the testimonies of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 demonstrates that neither witness has 2026:UHC:4400 levelled any allegation whatsoever against the applicant; that, there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and no material has been brought on record to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty, harassment, or any dowry-related demand by the applicant soon before her death; that, the applicant's earlier bail application was rejected by the court below vide order dated 26.02.2026; that, the applicant is a permanent resident of District Haridwar, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence; that, the trial would likely to take considerable time to conclude, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. Per contra, learned State Counsel would oppose the bail application and submit that serious allegations have been levelled against the applicant in the F.I.R. However, he fairly concedes that the testimonies of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 do not contain any allegation against the applicant regarding demand of dowry, cruelty, or harassment. He further admits that the applicant's earlier bail application was rejected by the court below vide order dated 26.02.2026. 10. Having considered the rival submissions and the material available on record, this Court finds that, for attracting the offence punishable under 2026:UHC:4400 Section 80(2) of the B.N.S.S. the prosecution is required to establish a proximate and live link between the alleged cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry and the death in question. At this stage, the testimonies of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, who are close relatives of the deceased, do not support the prosecution case and do not disclose any allegation of dowry demand, cruelty, or harassment against the applicant. This Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial. 11. The bail application is, accordingly, allowed. 12. Let the applicant be released on bail, on executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned. (Alok Mahra, J.) 02.06.2026 Mamta MAM TA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f 3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d6 7ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9ca bfd54852c9e68911ca8b66dd266 90a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.06.03 16:22:12 +05'30'