IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal I Bail Application No.733 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Jaswant Singh ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party ________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.458 of 2010, U/s 498-A/304-B IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Pauri, Distt. Pauri Garhwal Dated: August 28, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Navnish Negi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State. In brief the prosecution case is that marriage of Smt. Neelam (deceased) was solemnized with the present applicant on 03.03.2008 and she had died due to demand of dowry by the applicant and co-accused on 05.04.2010. When the complainant/father of deceased came to see his daughter on 6.4.2010 at about 4 AM, he found his daughter lying on a bed and colour of her face turned bluish. Thereafter the FIR was lodged on 07.04.2010 at PS Kotwali Pauri, Distt. Pauri Garhwal U/s 498-A/304- B IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated as he himself had taken the deceased to the hospital. On the contrary, learned Addl. GA submitted that mere taking of dead body of the deceased to the hospital will not absolve from the liability nor it will show the innocence of the accused. He further submitted during investigation, the IO recorded the statements of witnesses, namely Bhagat Singh (twice) (father of deceased), Smt. Parvati Devi (mother of deceased), Jagat Singh, who have completely 2 supported the prosecution story and after collecting the sufficient evidence, charge sheet was filed. He further submitted that the applicant is the husband of the deceased Smt. Neelam and marriage between the applicant and deceased was solemnized on 3.3.2008 and deceased had died on 5.4.2010 i.e. in a short span of two years i.e. less than seven years and she died in unnatural circumstances and from the evidence it is also clear that she was continuously being tortured and harassed for the demand of dowry and soon before her death also, she was harassed and tortured for the demand of dowry. He further submitted that the medical evidence also corroborates the prosecution story. From a perusal of the above-said evidence, it reveals that the marriage of deceased was solemnized with the applicant on 03.03.2008 and she had died on 05.04.2010 i.e. just after two years of her marriage in the house of her husband 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 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.) 28.08.2010 Rajeev Dang