Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 313 (UTT)

Deepak v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-05-06

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J. 1. Applicant Deepak is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 0402 of 2023, under Section 304-B 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. According to the FIR, the deceased and the applicant were married on 14.02.2020, but, thereafter, the deceased was harassed and tortured for and in connection with the demand of dowry. On 07.10.2023, the informant was told that the deceased has been killed by the applicant and the co-accused. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the FIR was lodged against all the family members of the applicant, but, after investigation, chargesheet has been filed against the applicant alone; it is not a case of dowry death; there were fights between the applicant and the deceased. It is argued that the deceased used to doubt the character of the applicant. Therefore, there were Panchayats also held in the village. He would refer to the statements of Smt. Munni Devi, Ajeet and Shishpal. He would also submit that although the informant has supported the FIR in his statements, but the brother of the deceased has stated that the applicant and the deceased had a dispute, as the deceased was doubting the fidelity of the applicant. 5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case in their statements given to the Investigating Officer. 6. It is a 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 proceeding. 7. In the case of dowry death, there are, no doubt, presumptions in such cases. In the instant case, the applicant has referred to the statements of various witnesses, namely, Munni Devi, Ajeet Singh and Shishpal, who are the villagers of the village of the applicant. They have stated that, in fact, the deceased and the applicant had a dispute, and they were doubting each other’s character. Reference has been made to the statement of Sachin, the brother of the deceased also. He has also stated on those lines. In fact, these witnesses have also stated that there were Panchayats also in the past. 8. They have stated that, in fact, the deceased and the applicant had a dispute, and they were doubting each other’s character. Reference has been made to the statement of Sachin, the brother of the deceased also. He has also stated on those lines. In fact, these witnesses have also stated that there were Panchayats also in the past. 8. Whatever allegations have been levelled, they are, in fact, joint allegations against the applicant and other co-accused. 9. 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. 10. The bail application is allowed. 11. 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.