[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
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. 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Indraj and Phool Samandri are dismissed as withdrawn.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
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.
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
