PANKAJ GIRI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2026:UHC:4400
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
BA1/380/2026

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned
counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Pratiroop Pande, learned A.G.A.
2.
for the State.
3. Applicant – Pankaj Giri, who is in
judicial custody in connection with
FIR/Case Crime No. 606 of 2025 (S.T.
No.162 of 2025), under Section 80(2) of
BNS, registered at P.S.- Kotwali,
District Haridwar, has sought her
release on bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the records.
5. In this case, a complaint was filed
by the mother of the deceased on
07.09.2025, in which, it was alleged
that the applicant and all the in-laws of
the deceased were continuously
harassing the deceased, who happened
to be her daughter ever since she got
married with the brother of the
applicant. It is further alleged that on
the fateful day of 06.09.2025, they got
a call from the deceased that her in-
laws are beating her very badly. They
reached there and found the deceased
hanging.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that the applicant is

2026:UHC:4400
innocent and he has falsely been
implicated in the case; that, before
lodging of the FIR in question, there is
no earlier complaint or FIR lodged by
her or the complainant regarding
demand of dowry against the applicant
or her family members; that, as such,
the provisions of Section 80(2) of BNS
are not attracted in the present case as
there is no live nexus between the
demand for dowry (cruelty/harassment)
and the act of suicide; that, there is no
evidence on record to show that the
deceased was ever harassed for the
demand of dowry.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant
would further submit that, during the
course of trial, the mother of the
deceased has been examined as P.W.-1
and the sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the
deceased has been examined as P.W.-2
and both the prosecution witnesses
have categorically deposed that the
applicant never made any demand for
dowry from the deceased and also
stated that the applicant used to take
proper care of the deceased and also
fulfil her wishes; that, both witnesses
have also unequivocally stated that the
applicant neither subjected the
deceased to physical assault nor
treated her with cruelty or abuse.
8. Learned counsel would further
submit that a careful perusal of the
testimonies of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2
demonstrates that neither witness has

2026:UHC:4400
levelled any allegation whatsoever
against the applicant; that, there is no
eyewitness to the occurrence and no
material has been brought on record to
establish that the deceased was
subjected to cruelty, harassment, or
any dowry-related demand by the
applicant soon before her death; that,
the applicant's earlier bail application
was rejected by the court below vide
order dated 26.02.2026; that, the
applicant is a permanent resident of
District Haridwar, and there is no
likelihood of his absconding or
tampering with the prosecution
evidence; that, the trial would likely to
take considerable time to conclude, the
applicant deserves to be enlarged on
bail.
9. Per contra, learned State Counsel
would oppose the bail application and
submit that serious allegations have
been levelled against the applicant in
the F.I.R. However, he fairly concedes
that the testimonies of P.W.-1 and
P.W.-2 do not contain any allegation
against the applicant regarding demand
of dowry, cruelty, or harassment. He
further admits that the applicant's
earlier bail application was rejected by
the court below vide order dated
26.02.2026.
10. Having considered the rival
submissions and the material available
on record, this Court finds that, for
attracting the offence punishable under

2026:UHC:4400
Section 80(2) of the B.N.S.S. the
prosecution is required to establish a
proximate and live link between the
alleged cruelty or harassment in
connection with demand of dowry and
the death in question. At this stage, the
testimonies of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, who
are close relatives of the deceased, do
not support the prosecution case and
do not disclose any allegation of dowry
demand, cruelty, or harassment
against the applicant. This Court is of
the opinion that the applicant has
made out a fit case for grant of bail.
Accordingly, without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, the
applicant deserves to be enlarged on
bail during pendency of the trial.
11. The bail application is, accordingly,
allowed.
12. Let the applicant be released on
bail, on executing personal bond and
furnishing two reliable sureties, each of
like amount, to the satisfaction of Court
concerned.





(Alok Mahra, J.)
02.06.2026

Mamta


MAM
TA
RANI
Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f
3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d6
7ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9ca
bfd54852c9e68911ca8b66dd266
90a191648ab5d8dd004ef0,
cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.06.03 16:22:12 +05'30'