Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/347/2025 of ABRAR AHMED Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 27 November 2025
UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Bail Application No.347 of 2025 Abrar Ahmed ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. K.K. Harbola, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
First Bail Application No.347 of 2025
Abrar Ahmed
….....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent
Present:- Mr. K.K. Harbola, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 72 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 34 IPC, Police Station Pullbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, the deceased and the applicant were married on 19.12.2021. But after marriage, the deceased was harassed and tortured for and in connection with dowry. Finally, the applicant and his family members killed the deceased on 25.05.2022.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody for a long now. There are more than 36 witnesses, but part of it have already been examined. He submits that it appears that it was a case sudden provocation.
5. Learned State counsel submits that it is a case of dowry death. The deceased was found dead in her home, but her throat was slit. Post mortem report confirms it.
2
6. Within a short period of marriage, the deceased was killed by her husband in her home by a sharp edged weapon. The post mortem report records that the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock due to ante mortem injuries.
7. Having considered all attending factors, this Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.
8. The bail application is rejected.
(Ravindra Maithani, J) 27.11.2025 Jitendra