IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL FIRST BAIL APPLICATION No. 754 of 2025 Rohit Bisht ......Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …..Opposite Party Presence Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel for the Applicant.

Mr. Tumul K. Nailwal, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present bail application is moved on behalf of the Applicant-accused , Rohit Singh Bisht, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 259 of 2024, lodged at Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun, under Section 80(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Applicant is the husband of the deceased. Their marriage was solemnized on 15.10.2021. The deceased died by hanging on 08.07.2024, within three years of marriage, at her matrimonial home, under circumstances alleged to be linked with dowry harassment.

2. It is alleged in the FIR that the deceased was subjected to repeated physical and mental harassment for dowry by her in-laws, including the Applicant. The deceased is said to have approached the SSP Dehradun, the Police Station Raipur, the Women Helpline, and the Child Protection Commission before her death with complaints of cruelty. It is further alleged that the Applicant had earlier admitted to his misconduct and had given an undertaking before the Commission not to repeat the same.

3. On the day of the incident, the deceased allegedly made a distress call to her sister, speaking of being beaten and her child being taken away. Shortly thereafter, she was found dead by hanging. The police conducted inquest proceedings, a post-mortem, and recorded statements of relevant witnesses. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed against the Applicant and the co-accused.

4. The accused was arrested on 11.07.2024 and has been in judicial custody since then. A bail application was moved before the learned Sessions Court, which was rejected on 14.11.2024.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. Learned counsel for the Applicant contends that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the case with ulterior motives. It is submitted that there is no direct evidence linking the Applicant to the deceased’s death, and no specific instance of dowry demand is mentioned in the FIR. The marriage was a love marriage, and the deceased continued to reside peacefully at her matrimonial home.

7. It is argued that the FIR is based on assumptions and is an attempt to convert a case of suicide into one of dowry death. The Applicant is a permanent resident with no criminal antecedents and undertakes to cooperate in the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.

8. The State opposes the bail application, arguing that the deceased died under suspicious circumstances within three years of marriage at her matrimonial home.

9. It is submitted that she(the deceased) had previously made complaints to various authorities alleging harassment for dowry, and the Applicant had even admitted his fault before the Women Helpline and Child Protection Commission. On the date of the incident, the deceased had a distress call with her sister, mentioning assault and her child being taken away.

10. It is further submitted that credible evidence, including witness statements and documentary material, supports the prosecution's case, and the offence is of a serious nature, warranting denial of bail.

11. This Court recognizes that cases involving dowry death require sensitive handling, as they often involve vulnerable victims who may not have adequate means to document or prove harassment. The deceased's approach to multiple authorities seeking help, followed by the Applicant's admission and settlement, suggests a pattern of behaviour that cannot be dismissed lightly.

12. However, it is also pertinent to note that the reasons for the deceased’s death were best known to her alone, as no suicide note or explicit dying declaration was left behind to disclose her final thoughts or intentions. Apart from the telephonic conversation with h