Yashveer @ Bobby vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 207 of 2021, under Section 304-B IPC, Police Station Khanpur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This is third bail application of the applicant. His first and second bail applications were dismissed on merits on 16.11.2022 and 21.03.2023 respectively.

According to the FIR, the deceased and the applicant were married on 09.02.2020. The deceased was harassed for additional demand of dowry by the applicant and his family members. Finally, on 24.09.2021, the victim died.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant is in custody for more than three years now. The Court has rejected the first bail application relying on the statement of one Kapil, who had alleged that on 24.09.2021, he alongwith one Abhishek Kumar had visited the deceased, when they were told that the applicant has beaten her up and demanded dowry. But it is argued that Abhishek who allegedly accompanied Kapil on that day has not supported the prosecution case. He would refer to the statement of PW11 Abhishek Kumar recorded on 27.01.2024. Certain portions of the statement have been referred to.

Learned State counsel would submit that in substance, 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.

The Court does not intend to scrutinize the evidence deeply. Fact remains that what PW3 Kapil has stated in para 3 of his statement has not been fully supported by the PW11 Abhishek Kumar. He has not stated that to him the deceased has revealed that she was beaten up by the applicant and had ever expressed any apprehension that she might be killed at her in-law’s house. In fact, her cross examination reveals may other things which need not be discussed in deeper details now.

Having considered, 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.