Pradeep vs State of Uttarakhand

Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Ms. Sanjana Madaan, the learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. S. S. Adhikari, the learned A.G.A. for the State.

This is the third bail application. The first and second bail application were rejected for want of prosecution vide orders dated 20.08.2010 and 03.01.2011 respectively. On 13.04.2008, the marriage was solemnized between the applicant and the complainant''s daughter and, within two years of marriage, an incident took place on 10.02.2010 and the wife of the applicant was burnt to death. The applicant is the husband of the deceased and the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that after the marriage, both were living peacefully and the applicant had never made a demand of dowry and if the applicant had made any demand, there would have been an evidence to that effect or it should have been mentioned in the first information report. The learned Counsel for the applicant has also drawn the attention to the court that on the date of the incident, two postdated cheques were given by the family members of the applicant to the father of the deceased. Out of these two cheques, one cheque amounting to Rs. 2 lakhs was encashed on 23.02.2010. The learned Counsel for the applicant consequently contended that the allegation made in the first information report is clearly an afterthought and the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is clear from a perusal of the first information report that a consistent demand of dowry was made and on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry, the applicant used to abuse the deceased by beating her. The evidence in the form of burning by sprinkling of kerosene oil has come out. In the light of the aforesaid, especially when the trial is going on and the evidence of the witnesses are being taken, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. The bail application is hereby rejected.