Joga Ram vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1116 UK

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

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

reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court

concerned.

11. List in due course.

(Siddartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 17.02.2026 17.02.2026 Akash