Meena vs State Of Uttarakhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1776 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Meena vs State Of Uttarakhand on 11 March, 2026

                                                                                 COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS

              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions
No
             and Registrar's
                order with
               Signatures
                                                                                        2026:UHC:1614

                               BA1 No. 4 of 2026

                               Meena                         --Applicant

                                               Versus

                               State of Uttarakhand           --Respondent

                               Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. V.K. Jemini, Mr. A.K. Jemini and Mr. Prem Kaushal, learned counsels for the Applicant.

2. Mr. J.P. Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. The present Bail Application has been moved by the Applicant - Smt. Meena, aged about 41 years, W/o Late Sri Mangeram, R/o Village Ganja Majra, P.S. Buggawala, District Haridwar. The Applicant is in judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 45 of 2023, registered at Police Station Buggawala, District Haridwar, under Section 80(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.

4. Heard Mr. V.K. Jemini, Mr. A.K. Jemini and Mr. Prem Kaushal, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 11.11.2025. It is further submitted that the Applicant never demanded any dowry and never subjected the deceased to cruelty. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased was suffering from depression and committed suicide herself; therefore, mens rea cannot be attributed to the present Applicant and she is entitled to be released on bail.

6. Learned State Counsel opposed the Bail Application, contending that the cause of death, as per the post-mortem report, is asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail at this stage.

8. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed.

9. Let the Applicant be released on bail upon her executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

10. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) 11.03.2026 Shiksha