Uttarakhand High Court
Joga Ram vs State Of Uttarakhand on 17 February, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Bail Application (IA No.1 of 2024)
In
Criminal Appeal No.682 of 2024
Joga Ram ........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. J. S. Virk, Deputy A.G. for the State.
Coram:Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 19.09.2024 and sentence dated 23.09.2024, passed in Session Trial No.21 of 2022, State of Uttarakhand Vs. Joga Ram, by the court of learned Additional Session Judge, Pithoragarh. By it, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 304B and 498-A of IPC. The appellant seeks bail in this appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The deceased was married with the appellant. On 15.03.2022 at 12:00 in the noon, she jumped into a well and died. FIR was lodged by her father alleging that it is appellant and his family members, who pelted stones on her, she, in order to save herself, ran 2 away and died due to stone pelting and thereafter, her body was found in the well.
4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant was on bail during trial. It is not a case of dowry death. Prosecution has not proved the date of marriage; had the deceased been hit with the stones, she would have sustained injury on the back part of her body. But, the injuries, which she sustained, are on the front part of her body. In fact, it is argued that in a fit of anger, she straightaway ran away from the house and jumped into the well, of which the information was given by the appellant to the revenue police.
5. Learned State counsel submits that victim had died within five years of marriage and it is a case of drowning. He admits that there are injuries received on the front side of her body, and there is no injury on the side of her body.
6. It is admitted by learned counsel for the parties that there is no eye-witness of pelting stones on the deceased.
7. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case in which the execution of sentence should be suspended and the appellant be enlarged on bail.
8. The bail application is allowed.
9. The execution of sentence appealed against is suspended during the pendency of the appeal.
10. The appellant be released on bail, during the pendency of the appeal, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two 3 reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
11. List in due course.
1 (Siddartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 17.02.2026 17.02.2026 Akash