IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital the 10th day of December 2009 Ist Bail Application No. 1063 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Ajay Saxena ……Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: December 10, 2009 Arising out of Case Crime No. 206/2009 Under Sections 302 and 328 of IPC P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State and also perused the record. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 27.4.2009 the complainant Smt. Durga Saxena lodged the FIR at P.S. Rudrapur with the averments that the applicant-accused had started torturing her daughter after one year of the marriage. Many times her daughter had told her that the applicant-accused used to threaten her for her life. It was further stated that on 26.4.2009 at 9 PM the applicant- accused administered poison to her daughter. This information was given to her on telephone by her grandson Sonu who was present in the house at the time of incident. It was further alleged that the applicant-accused was torturing and harassing her daughter because she could not conceive a child. On the basis of said FIR the case was registered in the police station against the present applicant. The State has filed the counter affidavit in which it is stated that during the course of investigation, the investigating Officer recorded the statements of Sonu, eyewitness and Km. Mamta u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and both of them have supported the prosecution story. (Statements of Sony and Km. Mamta are annexed as Annexure No. CA-2 to the counter affidavit). After considering all the facts and circumstances; hearing learned counsel for the parties; on perusal of the contents of the FIR and the statement of Sonu and Km. Mamta recorded by the I.O. U/S 161 Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that the present applicant does not deserve bail at this stage. The bail application is accordingly rejected. (Dharam Veer, J.) 10.12.2009