IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Original Jurisdiction Dated: Nainital: the 11th day of November, 2008 Third Crl. Bail Application No. 788 of 2008 Order on the Bail Application: CRIMINAL SIDE Jitendra Singh Bhandari S/o Sri Shoor Singh Bhandari R/o Village Hitkandala Patti Langurwala, Tehsil Satpuli, District Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand. ………… Applicant Versus S tate of Uttarakhand ………… Opposite Party Arising out of Crime No. 01 of 2007 (S.T. No. 20 of 2007) Under Sections: 304-B, 498-A of I.P.C. and Section ¾ Of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Police Station: Langoorwala –IInd, Tehsil Satpuli, District: Pauri Garhwal. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard Mr. U.P.S. Negi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Prakhakar Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State. This is third bail application, moved on behalf of applicant Jitendra Singh Bhandari, who is in jail in connection with crime No. 01 of 2007 (S.T. No. 20 of 2007), relating to offences punishable under Section 304-B and 498-A of I.P.C. and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Patwari Circle Langoorwala –IInd, Tehsil Satpuli, District Pauri Garhwal. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on 28.05.2007, on merits. The second bail application was rejected on 28.11.2007, on merits. 2 Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is languishing in jail for last one year and ten months and only two witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. He also referred to certain contradictions in the statement of the witnesses P.W. 1 Shankar Singh and P.W. 2 Sarojani Devi, recorded by the trial court. I have gone through the statement of the witnesses examined by the trial court. Prima facie, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, having gone through said statements, this Court finds that the prosecution story has been corroborated by the two witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The contradictions which are pointed out on behalf of the applicant are not relevant for the purposes of granting bail. It is for the trial court to see whether the applicant is found guilty, or not, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is a case of burning of a young bride within a year of her marriage. The applicant was her husband. Having considered submission of learned counsel for the parties, in the above circumstances, this Court does not find any sufficient reason to grant bail to the applicant. The third bail application is also rejected. [[ Dt. 11.11.2008 H.Negi