IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.604 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Amit S/o Jogaraj R/o 83 Shyamnagar Roorkee, P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar Roorkee District Haridwar ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: August 30, 2010 __________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.64/2009 U/Ss 498-A, 323, 307, 504, 120B of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar Roorkee, District Haridwar ________________________________________________________________ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. H.C. Pathak and Mrs. Neetu Singh, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State and Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant. In brief, the prosecution case is that Madan Pal Singh lodged a First Information Report against the applicant and co- accused alleging that the marriage of his daughter Savita was solemnized with the applicant on 5.5.2003. In the marriage, he spent about Rs.3.00 Lacs cash and also gave sufficient dowry, however, in-laws of his daughter were not satisfied with it and they started harassing her physically and mentally for dowry. It is further alleged that after birth of two female children, the in- laws of his daughter increased the torture upon his daughter and on 25.12.2006 for the non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry, the applicant-accused and co-accused beaten his daughter and, thereafter, with intention to kill her, they pushed her from the roof due to which her backbone was got fractured. When the complainant came to know about the said incident, he along with ex-pradhan Bhanvar, brother Sukhpal and Rajendra went to Roorkee, on which, the in-law of his daughter tendered apology for their mistakes and assured that they themselves will provide complete treatment to his daughter on their own expenses. For the sake of matrimonial life of his daughter, at that time, the complainant did not take any legal action against the accused persons but after three months, the applicant and co-accused ousted her from the house for the demand of Rs.2.50 Lacs and threatened her that the applicant will solemnize another marriage if their aforesaid demand would not be fulfilled. It is further alleged that on 11.12.2008 the applicant Amit illegally solemnized second marriage without any divorce from his daughter. Counter affidavits have been filed by the State as well as by the complainant along with which the statement of Smt. Savita recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. have been annexed, who has corroborated the contents of FIR in her statement. In counter affidavit, State has also annexed the medical report of Smt. Savita, which also shows the fracture in the backbone of Smt. Savita. Thus, the contents of FIR are also corroborated from the medical report. Keeping in view all the aforementioned facts and circumstances; statement of victim Smt. Savita recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.; medical report of the victim; the fact that specific role has been assigned to the applicant in the commission of crime and that the victim was subjected to mental and physical harassment for the demand of dowry by the applicant and due to non-fulfillment of the same, the applicant-accused pushed her from the roof of his house due to which her backbone was got fractured and she became handicapped, I am of the view that no case for bail is made out. The bail application is rejected accordingly. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the case preferably within a period of six months. (Dharam Veer, J.) 30.8.2010 RG