IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.685 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Sachin S/o Bhagwat Prasad R/o Lower Nathanpur, P.S. Nehru Colony, District Dehradun ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: September 13, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.99 of 2010 Under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 34 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act P.S. Nehru Colony, District Dehradun ________________________________________________________________ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Ms. Deepa Arya, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. As per the prosecution story, complainant Mahendra Singh Yadav’s daughter was married to the applicant-accused Sachin on 5.10.2009. After one month of the marriage, the applicant-accused and his family members started harassing the deceased for dowry. The deceased had told her parents that the applicant-accused is demanding a motorcyle and Rs.40,000/- cash otherwise she will be killed. On the persuasion of her parents, the deceased was sent back to her in-laws’ house. On 11.6.2010 at about 9:30 AM, when her mother went to see her daughter, she found her hanging. It is alleged in the FIR that the applicant-accused and his parents have committed murder of deceased Smt. Sushma for the demand of dowry. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant argued that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the said case. Contrary to this, learned Addl. GA for the State argued that it is a case of dowry death and there are specific allegations against the present applicant-accused. He further submitted that the deceased has died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage in the house of her husband due to the demand of dowry and soon before her death, she was being harassed by the present applicant for the demand of dowry. He has further submitted that the applicant, being the husband, is bound to prove as to how the deceased Smt. Sushma has died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage. After considering all the fact and circumstances of the case and particularly the fact that the deceased has died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage in the house of the applicant-accused and that she was being harassed by the applicant due to demand of dowry soon before her death, I am of the view that the applicant does not deserve bail at this stage. The bail application is rejected accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 13.9.2010 RG