IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 9th day of December, 2009 Miscellaneous Application No. 1302/2009 In 1st Bail Application No. 1129 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Pushpendra Singh .…. Applicant (In jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party ___________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No 394 of 2009, U/s 304-B/498-A IPC P.S. Kotwali, District Dehradun. _______________________________________________________________ December 9, 2009 HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. Pratiroop Pandey, Advocate for the accused applicant. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A. with Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate for the complainant. In view of the grounds mentioned in the accompanying affidavit, miscellaneous application for early hearing of the matter is allowed. Heard on the bail application. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 17.8.2009, the complainant Smt. Deveshwari Devi lodged an FIR with PS Kotwali, Dehradun with the averments that her daughter Damyanti was married to the accused applicant on 17.2.2009 and soon after the marriage, her daughter was being harassed and treated with cruelty by her husband i.e. the accused applicant and her in-laws on account of demand of dowry. The complainant tried to make them understand and even paid Rs. 30,000/- to the accused applicant, but they were not satisfied and never gave up their demand of dowry and it persisted and ultimately her daughter was subjected to death on 17.8.2009. Undisputedly the deceased did not die under normal circumstances. She died an unnatural death within six months of her marriage and that too, in the house of the accused applicant. Prosecution story is also corroborated by the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and the chargesheet has also been filed against the accused applicant and other co-accused. Having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties; perusal of the contents of FIR; post mortem report and other papers available on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the accused applicant on bail at this stage. The bail application is rejected accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 09.12.2009 PRABODH 2