Uttarakhand High Court
Rakesh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 26 February, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No.1288 of 2024
Rakesh ........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Shariq Khursid, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, A.G.A. for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 412 of 2022, under Section 304B, 302, 498A IPC and Section3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The applicant and the deceased were married on 02.05.2022. FIR records that even on the date of marriage, there was a dispute with regard to the dowry, but somehow the marriage was solemnized. Finally, on 26.10.2022, the deceased was killed.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody for a long now. More than seven witnesses, who are star witnesses have already been examined. Hence, it is a case fit for bail.
5. Learned State counsel submits that within five months of her marriage, the deceased was killed. There are witnesses who have stated about the demand of dowry. There are eyewitnesses also, when the appellant strangulated his wife to death. Reference has been made to the statement of Prem Rajput, Jamuna Devi and others. 2
6. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings.
7. The applicant and the deceased were married on 02.05.2022. The informant is elder brother of the deceased and other witnesses have supported the prosecution case. In fact, according to the prosecution, there were two reasons, one dowry demand and another extramarital relations of the applicant with some of his close relative. As per the post mortem report, the cause of death was asphyxia due to ante mortem strangulation.
8. Having considered all attending factors, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.
9. The bail application is rejected.
(Ravindra Maithani, J) 26.02.2026 Jitendra