IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal I Bail Application No.665 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Jai Prakash ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party ________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.77 of 2010, U/s 498-A/304-B IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Rishikesh, Distt. Dehradun Dated: August 25, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State. In brief the prosecution case is that marriage of Bindu (deceased) was solemnized with the present applicant on 21.5.2009 and she committed suicide due to demand of dowry by the applicant and co- accused Smt. Rajni on 18.2.2010 in the hosue of present applicant. Thereafter the FIR was lodged on 19.2.2010 at PS Kumbh Mela Thana Shyampur U/s 498-A IPC. Later the investigation was transferred to PS Rishikesh and during investigation, the offence u/s 304-B was further added as Smt. Bindu reported to be died. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the deceased had died in the night of 18.2.2010 but in the report lodged on 19.2.2010, the fact of death of deceased was not disclosed which creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution story. Contrary to this, learned Addl. GA submitted that the deceased had gone from Rishikesh to Delhi on 17.2.2010 and reached at the house of applicant in the morning of 18.2.2010 wherein the applicant/accused demanded dowry from her and also physically and mentally tortured her and due to this reason she committed suicide in the house of the applicant. He further submitted that a suicide note of the deceased was also recovered from her worn clothes at the time of post-mortem wherein she stated that due to the ill- treatment by the applicant and co-accused, she is committing suicide. He further submitted that during the course of investigation, the IO also recorded the statements of Shyam Vriksha (father of deceased) and Smt. Lilawati (mother of deceased), who have fully corroborated the fact that the deceased had committed suicide due to demand of dowry by the present applicant and also for non-fulfillment of that demand, she was physically and mentally tortured by the applicant and co-accused. Besides, the IO also recorded the statements of SI Sitaram, RK Saini, Tehsildar, Dr. Guru Prakash (Surgeon) who have also supported the prosecution story. From a perusal of the above-said evidence, it reveals that the marriage of deceased was solemnized with the applicant on 21.5.2009 and she had died suicidal death on 18.2.2010 i.e. within 9 months of her marriage and soon before her death, the applicant had demanded dowry from her for which she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty and it is also proved that she had committed suicide i.e. she had not died otherwise than under normal circumstances. 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.) 25.08.2010 Rajeev Dang