IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated: Nainital: the 30th day of April, 2008 II Criminal Bail Application No.396 of 2008 Order on the Bail application of accused. CRIMINAL SIDE Surendra Singh Nath, S/o Sri Hukum Singh, R/o Than Barethi, Patti Bisht, Police Station Dharasu, Tehsil Chinyalisaur, District Uttarkashi. ….Applicant(In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------ Opposite party ________________________________________________________ Arising out of Case Crime No.538 of 2007 U/S.498-A, 304-B I.P.C. & U/S. 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Dharasu, Tehsil Chinyalisaur, District Uttarkashi. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State. This is the second bail application moved by the applicant. The first bail application was dismissed as not pressed on 10.10.2007. In brief the prosecution case is this that Smt. Lalita was married to the present applicant/accused three years’ before her death. After the marriage the present applicant has demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as dowry and when the demand of dowry was not fulfilled by the parents of the deceased Smt. Lalita, then Smt. Lalita was tortured mentally and physically by the present applicant. Smt. Lalita was killed by the present applicant along with his other relatives due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry. With the same averments, the F.I.R. was lodged by Vikram Singh Rawat, father of the deceased Smt. Lalita on 22.08.2007 at 2:30 P.M. at Police Station Dhrasau, District Uttarkashi. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was juvenile on the date of the incident. Learned brief holder has refuted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant on the grounds that the applicant has not applied before the Juvenile Justice Board for declaring him as juvenile and upto the date he would not be declared juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, till then he is not entitled for the benefit. He has further submitted that the applicant is not a juvenile and during the investigation he has not filed any evidence before the Investigating Officer showing that he is a juvenile. Due to the above said reasons recorded, the applicant is not entitled for the benefit on the basis of the argument advanced on behalf of him. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the co-accused, father-in-law and mother-in-law have been released on bail and the applicant is also entitled for bail, on the basis of parity. But the role assigned to the father-in- law and mother-in-law is not similar as to the role assigned to the present applicant. Moreover, the applicant is husband of the deceased and he is not entitled for bail on the basis of parity. Learned brief holder for the State has submitted that Smt. Lalita had died in the house of the present applicant/accused within seven years’ of the marriage and just before the marriage the present applicant/accused had demanded Rs.50,000/- as dowry and due to this reason she was mentally and physically tortured by the present applicant/accused and Smt. Lalita had died not in the normal circumstance in the house of the present applicant/accused. This evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation and after completion of the investigation the Investigating Officer has also submitted the charge sheet before the Magistrate concerned. After considering all the facts and circumstances as discussed above, the applicant-Surendra Singh Nath does not deserve bail. The bail application is rejected accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 30.04.2008 Arti