IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 18th day of March, 2010 Ist Bail Application No. 188 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Avinash Joshi .….Applicant (In jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party ___________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No. 636/2009, U/s 304B, 498A IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, PS Lansdowne, District Pauri Garhwal. _______________________________________________________________ March 18, 2010 HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. Mr. Rajendra Kotiyal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State. Heard. Learned Counsel for the accused applicant submitted that the deceased Hemwati was married to the accused applicant on 12.5.2003. He further submitted that she received burn injuries at 9.30 pm on 18.8.2009 and succumbed to her burn injuries on 20.8.2009 at about 7.15 am at Military Hospital, Dehradun. He further submitted that the complainant Bacchi Ram, father of the deceased had visited the said hospital and met his daughter there and he was also present at the time of preparing the inquest report as well as at the time of cremation of the deceased. But FIR of this incident could be lodged by the complainant on 31.8.2009 i.e. after 13 days of the said incident and after 11 days of the death of his daughter Hemwati and this delay in lodging the FIR could not be explained by the prosecution by showing the sufficient cause. He further argued that in the FIR it has nowhere been alleged that the deceased was subjected to physical and mental torture for the demand of dowry. He also submitted that the applicant is in jail since 20.8.2009 and he too had received the burn injuries while trying to save his deceased wife. He further argued that the condition of the applicant is serious one because of the said burn injuries and he has been advised operation by the doctors at some better hospital and this is not possible while the applicant is in jail. Having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties; perusal of the contents of the FIR and other papers available on record; in view of the fact that the applicant needs immediate medical treatment and other facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting upon the final merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. Let the applicant Avinash Joshi be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing of two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Magistrate concerned. Bail application is allowed accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 18.3.2010 PRABODH 2