IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Ist Bail Application No.1280 of 2009 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Sumer Chand ..….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand …….Opposite party Dated: March 16, 2010 ____________________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.138 of 2009 Under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC P.S. Raipur, District Dehradun ________________________________________________________________ Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the applicant as well as Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State and also perused the record. Urgency Application No.940 of 2010 is allowed. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 24.8.2009 complainant Vishambhar lodged a FIR at P.S. Raipur, District Dehradun stating therein that his daughter Chamni Devi was married to the applicant on 27-28.4.2008 and that in the night of 23.8.2009 in-laws of his daughter set her daughter on fire due to which she has died. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued no specific allegation has been made against the applicant in the FIR. Contrary to this, learned brief holder for the State argued that the I.O. has recorded the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Rakhi, sister of the deceased, who has stated that the applicant poured kerosene oil on Chamni and thereafter set her on fire. She has also stated that the applicant has burnt the deceased for the demand of dowry. (Statement of Rakhi is annexed as Annexure No.3 to this bail application). Counter affidavit has also been filed by the State wherein statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Anil and Suresh, brothers of the deceased (Annexure No.CA-1 an CA-2) and Smt. Asha Devi, mother of the deceased (Annexure No.CA-3) and one Mohan Lal (Annexure No.CA- 6) have been annexed. They have also corroborated the statements of Rakhi. After considering all the facts and circumstances; on hearing learned counsel for the parties; on perusal of the contents of FIR; perusing the statements of the witnesses, namely, Rakhi, Anil, Suresh, Asha Devi and Mohan Lal and particularly the fact that the deceased has died in an unnatural circumstances within one year and four months i.e. within 7 years of her marriage in the house of the present applicant and soon before death she was mentally and physically harassed by the applicant for the demand of dowry, I am of the view that the present applicant does not deserve bail at this stage. The bail application is liable to be rejected and is rejected accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 16.03.2010 RG