IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 12th day of June, 2008 Criminal Third Bail Application No.321 of 2008 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Ramraj Singh S/o Rajendra Singh, R/o Vill.Masalgaon, P.S. Barkot, District Uttarkashi Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party ________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.338 of 2007, U/Ss 498-A/304(B) IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Barkot, Distt. Uttarkashi Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This is a third bail application. The first and second bail applications were dismissed as not pressed on 17.09.2007 and 19.11.2007 respectively and they were not decided on merits. Heard Sri Sudhir Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Tanuj Semwal, learned AGA for the State. In brief the prosecution case is that victim Smt. Anjali was married with the present applicant in the month of April, 2007. It was also averted in the FIR that later on some family discord arose between the applicant and Smt. Anjali and the applicant started demanding Rs.2.00 lacs in dowry from her. It was further averted that due to the demand of dowry, the victim Smt. Anjali was also physically and mentally harassed. It was further averted that on 6.7.2007, Bachhan Singh and Jaiveer Singh (father of deceased Anjali) had gone to leave Smt. Anjali at her matrimonial house. Thereafter, on 9.7.2007, applicant- Ramraj had come in the house of Jaiveer Singh and informed that victim Anjali was not at home. Thereafter, the complainant Chander Singh Bhandari along with Jaiveer Singh tried to search Smt. Anjali, but the could not succeed. On 12.7.2007, the dead body of Jaiveer Singh was found at Barkot bus stand. Thereafter, on 14.7.2007, the dead body of deceased Smt. Anjali was found in a river, however the dead body was recovered on 15.7.2007. With the same averments, the FIR was lodged on 16.7.2007 at 1:00 P.M. by Chandan Singh Bhandari at P.S. Barkot, Distt. Uttarkashi. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no direct evidence against the application to connect him with the aforesaid crime. On the other hand, learned AGA for the State has submitted that the victim Smt. Anjali had 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 is bound to prove as to how the deceased Smt. Anjali had died an unnatural death within 7 years of her marriage. He further submitted that the applicant is the only person who has committed murder of his wife. 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.) 12th June, 2008: Rajeev Dang