IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 9th day of December, 2009 1st Bail Application No. 1046 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Kharak Singh .…. Applicant (In jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …… Opposite Party ___________________________________________________________________ FIR No. 1/2009, U/s 304-B, 498-A & 202 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act Patti-Unchakot, Tehsil-Betalghat, District Nainital. _______________________________________________________________ December 9, 2009 HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the accused applicant. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A. with Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State. Heard. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 13.8.2009, the complainant Santosh Singh lodged an FIR with the averments that his sister Prema Devi was married to the accused applicant on 19.4.2009 and soon after one month of the marriage, his sister was being harassed and treated with cruelty by her husband i.e. the accused applicant on account of demand of dowry. His deceased sister had telephoned him on 25.7.2009 and told him that if the demand of dowry would not be met soon, her husband i.e. the accused applicant would kill her. On 8.8.2009, the accused applicant had telephonically informed the complainant that his sister was not well. On this, when he went to the house of the accused applicant on the next day i.e. on 9.8.2009, he saw that his sister was lying dead in the house of the accused applicant. Undisputedly the deceased did not die under normal circumstances. She died an unnatural death within four months of her marriage and that too, in the house of the accused applicant. Prosecution story is also corroborated by the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties; perusal of the contents of FIR; post mortem report and other papers available on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that there is no ground to enlarge the accused applicant on bail at this stage. The bail application is rejected accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 09.12.2009 PRABODH 2