HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated Nainital the 16th April, 2009 First Bail Application No. 1071 of 2008 Order on the bail application of the accused. Azam S/o Masoom …….. Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …….. Opposite Party Case Crime No. 44 of 2008 U/s 498-A, 120-B, 304-B I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act Police Station Bahadrabad District Haridwar Hon’ble J. C. S. Rawat, J. Heard Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate for the applicant; Mr. Nandan Arya, A.G.A. for the State; and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the F.I.R. did not disclose that the present applicant has committed cruelty upon the deceased soon before the death in connection with the dowry demand; the statements of Irshad, Haseena and Munsab annexed with the counter affidavit did not disclose that ever any dowry demand was made by the applicant & in non- fulfillment of such dowry demand, the applicant committed cruelty soon before the death upon the deceased; and there is no other evidence before the Court to the effect that the applicant committed the cruelty upon the deceased soon before death in connection with the dowry demand. The learned A.G.A. refuted the contentions. The learned A.G.A. could not produce any evidence except the evidence which has been annexed with the counter affidavit for the fact that there was cruelty soon before the death in connection with the dowry demand. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties; contents of the F.I.R.; the allegations made in the F.I.R.; statements of Irshad, Haseena and Munsab annexed with the counter affidavit; and the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, I find that it is a fit case for bail. Let the accused/applicant Azam be released on bail on executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate concerned. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) Dated 16.04.2009 Shiv