Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 69 (UTT)

Yogesh Joshi v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-02-03

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) - The applicant Yogesh Joshi is in custody in F.I.R. No. 59 of 2019 under Section 304B I.P.C. at Police Station I.T.I. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Based on this, Sessions Trial No. 147 of 2019 State v. Yogesh Joshi and others' is pending in the Court of First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar. The applicant has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 3. According to the F.I.R., the deceased and the applicant were married on 29.04.2015. Soon after the marriage the deceased was harassed for the demand of dowry by the applicant, his mother and father. On 16.03.2019, the deceased committed suicide. The suicide note was allegedly prepared on the basis of impression on a note-book as, according to the prosecution, the original suicide note was destroyed by the applicant and other accused. 4. Mr. R.S. Sammal, learned counsel for the applicant, would argue that this is a no evidence case. The first informant, who happens to be the father of the deceased has dis-owned the F.I.R.; he has not supported the prosecution case; and has categorically stated that his daughter was under depression and, therefore, she committed suicide. Learned counsel would also argue that the mother of the deceased has also not supported the prosecution case. There is no suicide note as such. It is further argued that, based on the print of some original writing, documents cannot be prepared and, if any document is so prepared, it cannot be legally admissible in criminal proceedings. Therefore, it is argued that it is a case fit for bail. 5. Mr. Atul Arya, learned Assistant Government Advocate, would argue that, based on the impression of the letters in the original note-book, the suicide note was re-created. It is admitted that the father and mother of the deceased have not supported the prosecution case. 6. Within four years of the marriage, unfortunately, the deceased committed suicide. The first informant, who is the father of the deceased, has not supported the prosecution case and has categorically stated that the applicant, or his family members, did not ever harass the deceased. According to the father of the deceased, the deceased was under depression and died on 16.03.2019. The mother of the deceased has also not supported the prosecution case. According to the father of the deceased, the deceased was under depression and died on 16.03.2019. The mother of the deceased has also not supported the prosecution case. Moreover, the suicide note, as original, has not been recovered. 7. Without further examining the evidence in detail and having considered the submissions, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves to be released on bail. 8. The bail application is, accordingly, allowed. 9. Let the applicant Yogesh Joshi 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.