IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated : Nainital the 22nd October, 2008 Criminal Bail Application No. 750 of 2008 Order on the bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Ajai Kumar S/o Surendra La @ Sunder Singh …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Opposite Party Arising out of case crime No. 461 of 2008 Under Section 304-B, 498A I.P.C. P.S. Kotdwar District Pauri Garhwal _________________________________________________________ Hon’ble J. C. S. Rawat, J. Heard Mr. U. P. S. Negi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Nandan Arya, A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record. It was contended on behalf of the applicant that in the FIR lodged on 03.05.2008 the allegations of dowry demand were vague; the statement of Bainji Lal, informant-father of the deceased, was recorded on 06.05.2008 in which he has stated that a colour T.V. and a golden chain were demanded by the applicant and in that connection the cruelty was committed upon the deceased; it is also in the FIR that on 03.05.2008 he called his brother Rana Lala before whom the deceased used to complain about the demand of dowry; perusal of the record also transpires that the mother of the deceased also met informant before lodging the report; the fact that the demand of dowry, namely golden chain and a colour T.V., has not been mentioned in the FIR; the said items of demanded dowry have been stated in the statement of informant which was recorded on 06.05.2008 after three days of the FIR; the statement of Rana Lala – uncle of the deceased was recorded on 22.05.2008 in which it has been stated that the demand of motorcycle & a golden chain was made by the applicant; there is no evidence that soon before death the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the applicant; the main ingredients of section 304-B IPC is missing in this case; the postmortem report reveals that the death occurred due to hanging and the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia; and there was no ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case; perusal of the FIR; and the statements annexed with the counter affidavit, I am of the view that it is a fit case for bail. Let the applicant-accused be released on bail on executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. However, it is made clear that the observations made above shall not prejudice the trial court. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) Dated 22.10.2008 LSR