IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal Bail Application No.129 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Yeshpal Singh ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party ________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime/FIR No.100 of 2009, U/s 304-B IPC, P.S. Kichha, Distt. U.S. Nagar Dated: March 9, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Pratiroop Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State. In brief the prosecution case is that Km. Rajni was got married with the applicant before about three years from the date of lodging of FIR i.e. on 27.6.2009 and her father gave dowry as per his status. On 26/27.6.2009, complainant Rajpal, father of victim, was informed that the applicant and his family members had murdered Km. Rajni by hanging her due to demand of a motorcycle. It was further stated that the victim was pregnant for about eight months. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated. On the contrary, learned brief holder argued that the applicant and his family members had murdered her by hanging for not getting motorcycle in dowry. Even in the post mortem report, cause of death has been opined as asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. The applicant is the husband and the case is of grievous nature. After considering all the facts and circumstances, particularly considering the post-mortem report of the deceased as well on perusal of the contents of the FIR, I am of the view that the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage. The bail application is thus rejected. (Dharam Veer, J.) 09.03.2010 Rajeev Dang