IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Original Jurisdiction Dated: Nainital: the 22nd day of March, 2010 Fourth Bail Application No. 04 of 2009. Criminal Side Jitendra Singh Bhandari S/o Sri Shoor Singh Bhandari R/o Village Hitkandala Patti Langurwala, Tehsil Satpuli District Pauri Garhwal. ……...Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand ……….Opposite Party Arising out of Crime No. 01 of 2007 (Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2007) Under Sections: 304 B, 498A I.P.C. and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. P.S.: Langoorwala II, Tehsil Satpuli District: Pauri Garhwal. -____________________________________________________________________________________ Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J Heard Shri U.P.S. Negi, Advocate for the applicant and Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State. This is fourth bail application, moved on behalf of the applicant-Jitendra Singh Bhandari, who is in jail in connection with crime No. 01 of 2007 (Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2007), relating to offences punishable under Sections 304 B, 498A I.P.C. and one punishable under Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S.: Langoorwala II, Tehsil Satpuli, District- Pauri Garhwal, has sought his release on bail. The first bail application was rejected on merits on 28.05.2007. Second bail application was rejected on merits on 28.11.2007 and the third bail application was rejected on merits on 11.11.2008. It is a case of death of a bride within a period of one year of her marriage, by burning, after she delivered a male child. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was not in his home on the date of the incident. It is further pleaded that allegations of demand of dowry and harassment are made against all the accused, and no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. These grounds have already been considered while rejecting the bail applications, moved earlier. Statements of P.W. 1 Shanker Singh, father of the girl and P.W. 2 2 Sarojani Devi, mother of the girl are filed with the application. They have supported the prosecution story. As many as five witnesses have already been examined. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is not inclined to grant bail. However, considering that the applicant is in jail since January 2007, it is necessary to direct the trial court (Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal), to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. With this observation, bail application is rejected. Dt. 22.03.2010 (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Sweta 3