IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 25th day of November 2009 Ist Bail Application No. 1153 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Pankaj Badoni ……………Applicant ( InJail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ……..Opposite party Dated: November 25, 2009 _________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No. 1961/09, U/Ss 304-B /498-A IPC & ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Srinagar, Distt. Pauri Garhwal _________________________________________________________ Hon’ble Dharam Veer,J. Heard Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate for the applicant as well as Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State and perused the record. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 21.72009 at about 10:30 AM Smt. Vijaya Devi lodged a report at P.S. Srinagar with the allegations that the applicant has committed murder of her daughter for not fulfilling the demand of dowry. It was further stated that her daughter was married to the applicant on 28.06.2009. After the marriage the applicant used to harass her daughter physically and mentally for bringing less dowry. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the marriage between the deceased and the applicant was a love marriage and there was no question of demand of dowry. It is further submitted that the co-accused father- in-law and mother-in-law have been released on bail and the applicant is also entitled for bail, on the basis of parity. Learned Brief Holder for the State has submitted that the role assigned to the father-in-law and mother-in-law is not similar as to the role assigned to the present applicant. Moreover, the applicant is husband of the deceased and he is not entitled for bail on the basis of parity. Learned brief holder for the State has further submitted that Smt. Meenakshi (deceased) had died in the house of the present applicant/ accused after 22 days of the marriage i.e. within seven year’s of the marriage and after the marriage the present applicant/accused of dowry and further the deceased had not died in the normal circumstances in the house of the present applicant/accused. After considering all the facts and circumstances and hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the contents of FIR and the others papers available in file, 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.) 25.11.2009