Rohit Bisht v. State of Uttarakhand

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 First Bail Application No. 754 of 2025-----Rohit Bisht vs State of Uttarakhand 1 Ashish Naithani J. 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. First Bail Application No. 754 of 2025-----Rohit Bisht vs State of Uttarakhand 2 Ashish Naithani J.

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 her sister, which only partially hinted at distress, there was no categorical communication from the deceased linking her suicide directly to dowry harassment. This crucial absence of direct attribution introduces an element of ambiguity that the trial must carefully examine.

13. The investigation appears to be complete with the filing of the charge sheet, and this Hon'ble Court has already granted the co-accused persons bail. The Applicant has been in custody for a considerable period, and there is no indication that his release would hamper the investigation or influence witnesses at this stage. First Bail Application No. 754 of 2025-----Rohit Bisht vs State of Uttarakhand 3 Ashish Naithani J.

14. Several factors require careful balancing in the present case. The Applicant has been in custody since 11.07.2024, which is approximately five months of incarceration. While this period is not extraordinarily long, it is substantial enough to warrant consideration, especially when the co- accused persons have already been granted bail.

15. The seriousness of the allegations cannot be understated. Dowry death cases represent a grave social evil that requires stringent action. However, the Court must also ensure that the process of law is not misused and that an accused person's liberty is not unduly curtailed without sufficient justification. While serious, the evidence in the present case appears to be largely circumstantial and requires thorough examination during the trial. 16. The fact that the Applicant had previously admitted guilt before the State Commission and reached a settlement is concerning. However, this admission pertains to harassment complaints and not directly to the charge of dowry death. The Court must distinguish between domestic discord and criminal culpability for dowry death, which requires proof of a direct causal connection between dowry demands and the suicide.

17. The testimony of the deceased's sister regarding the final telephonic conversation is crucial evidence that will require careful examination during the trial. The authenticity and interpretation of this conversation will be vital to the prosecution's case. At the bail stage, the Court cannot conclusively determine the weight of this evidence.

18. In view ofthe decision in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors AIR 2011 SC 312, the Hon’ble SC observed that the order granting or refusing bail must reflect a perfect balance between the conflicting interests, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and the interest of the society. The court reiterated that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. First Bail Application No. 754 of 2025-----Rohit Bisht vs State of Uttarakhand 4 Ashish Naithani J.

19. Section 80(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponds to Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and pertains to dowry death, providing that where burns, bodily injury cause the death of a woman, or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage, and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry, such death shall be presumed to be a dowry death.

20. At this stage, the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, though statutorily raised, is rebuttable and not conclusive. It requires the prosecution to establish that the harassment or cruelty was 'soon before her death' and in connection with dowry demands.

21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Keshab Narayan Biyani v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6 SCC 572, reiterated that while allegations of dowry death must be treated with seriousness, the Court must ensure that pre-trial incarceration is not prolonged unduly where direct evidence is lacking and the case is based on circumstantial material. ORDER In view of the above discussions and considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the bail application is allowed. The Applicant Rohit Bisht is directed to be released on bail in FIR No. 259 of 2024 under Section 80(2) of BNS, registered at Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun, upon furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. The observations made in this order are confined to the disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the First Bail Application No. 754 of 2025-----Rohit Bisht vs State of Uttarakhand 5 Ashish Naithani J. merits of the case. The trial court shall decide the case on its own merits based on the evidence that may be produced before it, without being influenced by any observations made in this order. (Ashish Naithani, J.) Dated:10.06.2025 NR/ NITESH RAWA T DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc3988 ad93d563d95c70eb77fa0ea4758e 401cf436bdce9fb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=F691686B3C44743 4E89897BCDC0B6567DCE4B7108 B324FFED3C8A159F3BDD03C, cn=NITESH RAWAT First Bail Application No. 754 of 2025-----Rohit Bisht vs State of Uttarakhand 6 Ashish Naithani J.