IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.605 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Neetu S/o Nathiram R/o Mandawar, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: June 29, 2010 Arising out of Case Crime No.35 of 2010 Under Section 304-B of IPC, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Additional Government Advocate for the State. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 23.2.2010 complainant Ashok lodged a report at Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar stating therein that on 22.2.2010 at about 12:06 AM in the night, he received the death information of his niece. On this information, he along with his brother Ravindra and some villagers went at the house of his niece at Village Madawar and saw the dead body of his niece lying in the bedroom. He alleged that the applicant Neetu and his parents have committed her murder and they have been fled after the said incident. The applicant used to demand money from his niece and he had also given Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- two times to the applicant on his demand. He also alleged that the applicant used to harass his niece for money. He further stated that the deceased used to tell him and his brother about the harassment committed upon her by the applicant. He further stated that several times he and others had tried to persuade her husband and her in-laws but all were in vain and at last they committed murder of his niece. It is also stated that the marriage of the deceased had taken place two years before. With the same averments, the FIR was lodged by Ashok on 23.2.2010 at 10 AM at P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the alleged crime. Contrary to this, learned Addl. GA for the State has submitted that the victim Smt. Preeti has died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage in the house of her husband due to the demand of dowry and soon before her death, she was harassed by the present applicant for the demand of dowry. He has further submitted that the applicant, being the husband, is bound to prove as to how the deceased Smt. Preeti has died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage. After considering all the fact and circumstances of the case and particularly the fact that the deceased had died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage and she was residing in her husband’s house just before her death and she was being harassed soon before her death by the applicant due to demand of dowry, the Court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve bail at this stage. Hence, the bail application is rejected accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 29.06.2010 RG