IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.974 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Chandan Singh ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: March 19, 2010 ____________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.2 of 2008 Under sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC P.S. Patwari Kshetra Kanda, District Nainital ________________________________________________________________ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Yogesh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State and also perused the record. In brief, the prosecution story is that a FIR was lodged by Daleep Singh on 11.7.2008 at 10 AM alleging that the marriage of his daughter namely Neeta was solemnized with the applicant/accused Chandan Singh in the year 2005-06. He alleged that his daughter was tortured for the demand of dowry and she was threatened to be killed due to which number of times she came to her parental house to save her life. On 9.7.2008 in the morning she came to her parental house to save her life leaving behind her 21 days’ child. Thereafter in the evening he alongwith his wife and his daughter went to the matrimonial house of his daughter and stayed there in the night and on next day they went back to their home. Thereafter at 11:30 AM he got information through someone and reached the matrimonial house of his daughter where he found his daughter dead. It is alleged in the FIR that the in-laws of Neeta have committed her murder. The State has filed its counter affidavit along with which the statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Smt. Laxmi Devi, mother of deceased and Sri Roop Singh, brother of deceased have been annexed. They have also supported the allegations made in the FIR. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has never demanded dowry from the deceased or her parents and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the said case. Per contra, learned Brief Holder for the state stated that the post-mortem of the dead body of deceased was conducted on 12.7.2008 and in the post- mortem report, it has been stated that the cause of death is shock due to 98% burn injury. He further submitted that the victim Neeta had died an unnatural death due to burn injuries 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 harassed by the present applicant for the demand of dowry. He further submitted that it is a case of dowry death and the accused who is the husband of the deceased is responsible for the death. After considering all the facts and circumstances; on hearing learned counsel for the parties; perusing the contents of FIR; perusing the post-mortem report and the statements of the witnesses and particularly the fact that the deceased had died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage in the house of her husband due to demand of dowry and soon before her death she was being harassed by the applicant for the demand of dowry, the Court is of the view that the applicant do not deserve bail at this stage. Hence, the bail application is rejected accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 19.03.2010 RG