State of Uttarakhand v. Mr. Bhuwan Bhat, learned counsel for the

Judgment

1. The applicant has filed the present bail application, Chandan Singh Bisht, under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 259 of 2024, registered at Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun, for the offence punishable under Section 80(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which relates to an offence of dowry death.

2. The deceased, Malti, was married to the applicant’s brother, Rohit Bisht, on 15.10.2021. She allegedly died by hanging under suspicious circumstances on 08.07.2024. The deceased’s mother, Smt, lodged the FIR. Kanti Devi, on 09.07.2024, wherein allegations were made regarding persistent demands for dowry and harassment meted out to the deceased by her husband and his family members, including the present applicant.

3. The applicant, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased, was arrested on 09.08.2024 and has remained in judicial custody since then. The charge sheet has already been filed. It is an admitted fact that the co-accused, namely Dayal Singh (father-in-law) and Hema Bisht 1 (mother-in-law), have been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.02.2025 passed in Bail Application No. 2149 of 2024.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the FIR does not attribute any specific overt act to the applicant. No incident, date, or particular instance of harassment by the applicant has been cited. The allegations are omnibus and generalised in nature.

5. It is urged that the deceased and the applicant's brother had a love marriage.The applicant was neither residing in the same household nor directly involved in the matrimonial life of the deceased. The allegations against him are vague and general in nature.

6. It is further submitted that although the FIR alleges dowry demands and harassment, there were no specific complaints made by the deceased or her family against the applicant prior to the incident. The prior complaints, if any, were directed against the husband and the parents-in-law.

7. The co-accused, namely Dayal Singh (father-in-law) and Hema Bisht (mother-in-law), have already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Bail Application No. 2149 of 2024 vide order dated 28.02.2025. The case of the present applicant stands on a better or at least equal footing, and therefore deserves parity.

8. It is a settled proposition of law that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated or sustained merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. In the absence of specific and cogent material, continued incarceration of the applicant amounts to an abuse of process and denial of personal liberty.

9. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident, and undertakes to comply with all bail conditions. The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed; hence, further custodial interrogation is unnecessary

10. Learned State Counsel, while opposing the bail, submits that the deceased had previously approached the Women’s Help Line and the 2 Uttarakhand Child Rights Protection Commission, citing physical assault, dowry-related demands, and being ousted from her matrimonial home.

11. Documentary records, including written complaints, witness statements, and an affidavit of assurance executed by co-accused Rohit Bisht (husband), affirm the continued abuse. Despite the assurances, the harassment persisted, ultimately culminating in Malti’s death. Her body was recovered under suspicious circumstances, and the post- mortem confirms death by ante-mortem hanging.

12. Further, the state submits that the present case pertains to a serious and sensitive matter involving the unnatural death of a young married woman under suspicious circumstances. The allegations of continuous dowry harassment, physical abuse, and mental torture leading to her death demand strict judicial scrutiny and cannot be taken lightly.

13. It is submitted that although the applicant is not the husband, he is a close family member and part of the matrimonial household. The cumulative role of all family members, as per the allegations, drove the deceased to suicide.

14. The State expresses apprehension that the applicant may tamper with evidence or influence key witnesses if released on bail.

15. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and Perused the records.

16. This Court finds that the material on record, particularly the FIR, the prior complaints, and the charge sheet, indicates that the allegations against the applicant are largely general and do not specify any incident directly attributable to him. No date, instance, or particular act of cruelty has been mentioned qua this applicant.

17. While the deceased did file complaints in 2023 before appropriate forums, including the Child Rights Commission, the allegations therein predominantly concern her husband. The 3 involvement of the present applicantChandan Singh Bishthas not been substantiated with any distinct act or document.

18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that vague and omnibus allegations, without specific attribution, are insufficient for continued detention, especially in cases involving family members of the husband. In Kailash v. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 10 SCC 115, it was held that relatives of the husband should not be roped in casually unless there are specific and credible allegations against them.

19. Similarly, in Geeta v. State of U.P., (2010) 13 SCC 372, the Court observed that routine implication of in-laws without specific allegations leads to misuse of Section 304B IPC and equivalent provisions. Courts must ensure that the liberty of individuals is not curtailed on the basis of collective accusations.

20. The Court also takes note that the applicant has no prior criminal history, is not the primary accused, and is not shown to have been in direct contact with the deceased in relation to the alleged harassment. The recovery of material evidence is complete, and the investigation stands concluded.

21. The case of the applicant, a collateral relative, is distinguishable from the husband’s and similar to that of the already released co- accused (father-in-law and mother-in-law). The principle of parity applies, as enunciated in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22, where the Hon’ble Court underscored that bail jurisprudence must be based on equity and parity.

22. Hence, in the totality of the circumstances, prolonged pre-trial incarceration of the applicant would not serve any purpose and would amount to punishment before conviction, which is contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. ORDER Let the applicant, Chandan Singh Bisht, be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount, to 4 the satisfaction of the Court concerned. The applicant shall not tamper with evidence, shall not influence witnesses in any manner, and shall appear before the Trial Court on each date fixed. In case of breach of any condition, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. The bail application is allowed accordingly. (Ashish Naithani J.)

09.04.2025 NR/ 5

Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 259 of 2024, registered at Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun, for the offence punishable under Section 80(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which relates to an offence of dowry death.

2. The deceased, Malti, was married to the applicant’s brother, Rohit Bisht, on 15.10.2021. She allegedly died by hanging under suspicious circumstances on 08.07.2024. The deceased’s mother, Smt, lodged the FIR. Kanti Devi, on 09.07.2024, wherein allegations were made regarding persistent demands for dowry and harassment meted out to the deceased by her husband and his family members, including the present applicant.

3. The applicant, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased, was arrested on 09.08.2024 and has remained in judicial custody since then. The charge sheet has already been filed. It is an admitted fact that the co-accused, namely Dayal Singh (father-in-law) and Hema Bisht 1 (mother-in-law), have been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.02.2025 passed in Bail Application No. 2149 of 2024.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the FIR does not attribute any specific overt act to the applicant. No incident, date, or particular instance of harassment by the applicant has been cited. The allegations are omnibus and generalised in nature.

5. It is urged that the deceased and the applicant's brother had a love marriage.The applicant was neither residing in the same household nor directly involved in the matrimonial life of the deceased. The allegations against him are vague and general in nature.

6. It is further submitted that although the FIR alleges dowry demands and harassment, there were no specific complaints made by the deceased or her family against the applicant prior to the incident. The prior complaints, if any, were directed against the husband and the parents-in-law.

7. The co-accused, namely Dayal Singh (father-in-law) and Hema Bisht (mother-in-law), have already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Bail Application No. 2149 of 2024 vide order dated 28.02.2025. The case of the present applicant stands on a better or at least equal footing, and therefore deserves parity.

8. It is a settled proposition of law that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated or sustained merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. In the absence of specific and cogent material, continued incarceration of the applicant amounts to an abuse of process and denial of personal liberty.

9. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, is a permanent resident, and undertakes to comply with all bail conditions. The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed; hence, further custodial interrogation is unnecessary

10. Learned State Counsel, while opposing the bail, submits that the deceased had previously approached the Women’s Help Line and the 2 Uttarakhand Child Rights Protection Commission, citing physical assault, dowry-related demands, and being ousted from her matrimonial home.

11. Documentary records, including written complaints, witness statements, and an affidavit of assurance executed by co-accused Rohit Bisht (husband), affirm the continued abuse. Despite the assurances, the harassment persisted, ultimately culminating in Malti’s death. Her body was recovered under suspicious circumstances, and the post- mortem confirms death by ante-mortem hanging.

12. Further, the state submits that the present case pertains to a serious and sensitive matter involving the unnatural death of a young married woman under suspicious circumstances. The allegations of continuous dowry harassment, physical abuse, and mental torture leading to her death demand strict judicial scrutiny and cannot be taken lightly.

13. It is submitted that although the applicant is not the husband, he is a close family member and part of the matrimonial household. The cumulative role of all family members, as per the allegations, drove the deceased to suicide.

14. The State expresses apprehension that the applicant may tamper with evidence or influence key witnesses if released on bail.

15. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and Perused the records.

16. This Court finds that the material on record, particularly the FIR, the prior complaints, and the charge sheet, indicates that the allegations against the applicant are largely general and do not specify any incident directly attributable to him. No date, instance, or particular act of cruelty has been mentioned qua this applicant.

17. While the deceased did file complaints in 2023 before appropriate forums, including the Child Rights Commission, the allegations therein predominantly concern her husband. The 3 involvement of the present applicantChandan Singh Bishthas not been substantiated with any distinct act or document.

18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that vague and omnibus allegations, without specific attribution, are insufficient for continued detention, especially in cases involving family members of the husband. In Kailash v. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 10 SCC 115, it was held that relatives of the husband should not be roped in casually unless there are specific and credible allegations against them.

19. Similarly, in Geeta v. State of U.P., (2010) 13 SCC 372, the Court observed that routine implication of in-laws without specific allegations leads to misuse of Section 304B IPC and equivalent provisions. Courts must ensure that the liberty of individuals is not curtailed on the basis of collective accusations.

20. The Court also takes note that the applicant has no prior criminal history, is not the primary accused, and is not shown to have been in direct contact with the deceased in relation to the alleged harassment. The recovery of material evidence is complete, and the investigation stands concluded.

21. The case of the applicant, a collateral relative, is distinguishable from the husband’s and similar to that of the already released co- accused (father-in-law and mother-in-law). The principle of parity applies, as enunciated in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22, where the Hon’ble Court underscored that bail jurisprudence must be based on equity and parity.

22. Hence, in the totality of the circumstances, prolonged pre-trial incarceration of the applicant would not serve any purpose and would amount to punishment before conviction, which is contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. ORDER Let the applicant, Chandan Singh Bisht, be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount, to 4 the satisfaction of the Court concerned. The applicant shall not tamper with evidence, shall not influence witnesses in any manner, and shall appear before the Trial Court on each date fixed. In case of breach of any condition, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. The bail application is allowed accordingly. (Ashish Naithani J.)

09.04.2025 NR/ 5