Uttarakhand High Court
Meghraj vs State Of Uttarakhand on 1 April, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application No. 01 of 2024
In
Criminal Appeal No.526 of 2024
Meghraj ......Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, D.A.G. for the State.
Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, Advocate for the informant.
With
Bail Application No. 01 of 2024
In
Criminal Appeal No.528 of 2024
Mahendra ......Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, D.A.G. for the State.
Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, Advocate for the informant.
With
Bail Application No. 01 of 2024
In
Criminal Appeal No.529 of 2024
Indraj ......Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, D.A.G. for the State.
Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, Advocate for the informant.
2
With
Bail Application No. 01 of 2024
In
Criminal Appeal No.646 of 2024
Phool Samandri ......Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, D.A.G. for the State.
Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, Advocate for the informant.
And
Bail Application No. 01 of 2024
In
Criminal Appeal No.647 of 2024
Gyanwati ......Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ....Respondent
Present:
Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. J.S. Virk, D.A.G. for the State.
Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, Advocate for the informant.
Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw the bail applications of the appellants Meghraj, Mahendra, Indraj and Phool Samandri saying that these appellants would file an additional evidence and thereafter, they would file fresh bail applications.
2. Permission is accorded.
3
3. Bail applications of the appellants Meghraj, Mahendra, Indraj and Phool Samandri are dismissed as withdrawn.
4. Criminal Appeal No. 647 of 2024 is preferred against the judgment and order dated 13/14.08.2024, passed in Sessions Trial No. 124 of 2018, State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and others, by the court of 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar. By it, the appellant Gyanwati has been convicted under Section 304B IPC and sentenced accordingly. She seeks bail during the pendency of the appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. This is an admitted appeal.
7. List for final hearing on 01.06.2026 alongwith connected matters
8. Heard on Bail Application No.1 of 2024
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant Gyanwati is 81 years old and ill. She is mother-in-law of the deceased. It is argued that the FIR is quite delayed in this case, which records that soon after the marriage, the deceased was harassed and tortured for and in connection with demand of dowry. It is argued that had it been the case, the FIR would have been lodged promptly. It is also argued that the prosecution has not even 4 suggested that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to demand of dowry, which could have attracted the provisions of Section 304B IPC. It is also argued that no post mortem was conducted. No inquest was conducted. Not only this, it is argued that the father of the deceased at the time cremation etc had given in writing that he does not want to proceed in the matter against the appellant.
10. Learned counsel for the informant submits that after the death of the deceased, he daughter was dropped at the house of the father of the deceased by the appellant Rajesh, who is husband of the deceased. Once thereafter, the father of the deceased had sent someone to collect the warm clothes of the daughter of the deceased in the appellant's house and alongwith those clothes, they found two hand written letters of the deceased, which revealed a story of agony, harassment, torture and demand of dowry. It is, thereafter, FIR was lodged.
11. Learned counsel for the State as well as the informant does not oppose the bail application of the appellant Gyanwati on the ground that she is aged person of 81 years.
12. Without discussing on merits purely on the ground that the appellant Gyanwati is an 81 years old and ill lady, we are of the view that it is a case in which the execution of sentence should be suspended and the appellant Gyanwati be enlarged on bail.
13. The bail application is allowed.
5
14. The execution of sentence appealed against is suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
15. Let the appellant Gyanwati be released on bail, during the pendency of the appeal, on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 01.04.2026 Jitendra