IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal I Bail Application No.1143 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Gurmeet Singh ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party ________________________________________________________ Arising out of FIR No.19 of 2009, U/s 304-B/498-A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Jaspur, Distt. U.S. Nagar Dated: March 17, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Smt. Pushpa Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State. In brief the prosecution case is that the marriage of complainant’s niece Puja was solemnized with the applicant on 28.4.2007 and in the marriage, Rs.1.00 lacs in cash and articles worth Rs.4.00 lacs were given in dowry. But the applicant and his family members were not happy with the dowry given and they again started demanding a Pulsar Motorcycle and Rs.2.00 lacs in cash from the victim Puja in dowry. When the demand was not fulfilled, complainant’s niece Puja was burnt alive by the applicant and his family members. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are general in nature and co- accused have also been released on bail. Contrary to this, learned Brief Holder submitted that the specific allegations have been made in the FIR against the applicant for demanding a Pulsar motorcycle and Rs.2.00 lacs in cash soon before her death and the applicant-accused also harassed the deceased physically and mentally for dowry. In the post-mortem report of the deceased Puja, cause of death was assigned shock as a result of about 99% ante- mortem burn injuries, which also proves the averments made in the FIR. The deceased had died within two years of her marriage due to burn injuries in the house of the applicant and soon before her death, the applicant had demanded Rs.2.00 lacs in cash and a Pulsar Motorcycle in dowry. After considering the above-said facts and circumstances, on hearing learned counsel for the parties, contents of the FIR and other papers available on record, it is not a fit case where the applicant is entitled for bail. The bail application is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. (Dharam Veer, J.) 17.03.2010 Rajeev Dang