Sandeep vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No. 260 of 2024, under Section 304B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Gangnahar Roorkee, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, the deceased and the applicant were married on 26.10.2023. The deceased was given many gifts at the time of marriage. But, the applicant and his family members were not happy with the given articles and they would harass and torture the deceased for and in connection with the demand of the dowry. Finally, on 25.05.2024, the deceased committed suicide.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no specific demand stated in the FIR. In his statement, the informant has stated that Rs.20 Lakh were demanded for construction of banquet hall by the applicant and his family members. He would submit that the allegations are general. Other family members have been exonerated. Only the applicant has been charge sheeted in the matter. He would also submit that the mother of the deceased has not stated that Rs.20 Lakh were demanded for construction of banquet hall. It is also submitted that the informant has admitted that she was working at a salary of Rs.16,000/- per month, therefore, demand of Rs.20 Lakh from him is highly improbable. Therefore, it is argued that it is a case fit for bail. Learned counsel has referred to the statements of the witnesses recorded during trial.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant would submit that even in the inquest report, some marks have been noticed on the back of the deceased, although, he admits that such injuries were not noted in the post mortem report; the witnesses have supported the prosecution case.

Learned State counsel would submit that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case.

It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings.

Admittedly, in the FIR, as such, it is not stated as to what was demanded from the deceased as dowry. In evidence, PW1 has stated that Rs.20 Lakh were demanded for construction of the banquet hall. The allegations are made against the applicant and all others. The mother of the deceased have not stated anything about the specific demand of Rs.20 Lakh.

Having considered this and other attending factors, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

The bail application is allowed.

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.