High CourtsSingle Bench

Ravindra Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 19 December 2024 · Citation: (2024) 12 UK CK 0112

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Maithani, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 201, 304B
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
First Bail Application No. 1587 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 371 words

Ravindra Maithani, J

1.

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No. 82 of 2024, under Section 304B, 201, 120B IPC, Police Station Piran Kaliyar, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3.

The deceased and the applicant were married on 29.06.2020. According to the FIR, the deceased was harassed and tortured by the applicant and his family members for and in connection with demand of dowry. Finally, she was killed on 04.03.2024.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it is not a case of dowry death. He would submit that according to the prosecution only, in the year 20223, there was a compromise entered into between the parties. He would submit that the compromise was not with regard to the dowry, but it was with regard to the habits of the applicant that he drinks or takes drugs. Reference has been made to Annexure 5 to the bail application, which records that the applicant had given an undertaking that he would not consume liquor or bhang and he would maintain peace in his family. Reference has also been made to the statements of the witnesses. It is also argued that, in fact, it is the applicant, who had informed about the deteriorating condition of the deceased, who had consumed poison; she was taken to hospital; when her condition deteriorated further, the hospital authorities demanded a lot of money; the applicant and his family members were not able to pay that amount; thereafter, she was discharged by the hospital authorities.

5.

Learned State counsel admits the compromise dated 25.08.2022, which is with regard to the liquor and bhang consumption of the applicant. He would submit that the applicant and his family members started cremation of the deceased without waiting for the informant and his family members.

6.

Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

7.

The bail application is allowed.

8.

Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.