RAJESH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2012-9-14
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Decided on September 06,2012

RAJESH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard. Applicants-Rajesh and Smt. Usha, who are in jail in connection with F.I.R. No. 73 of 2012, relating to offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 307 and 304B of I.P.C., and one punishable under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, have sought their release on bail.
(2.) First bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 31.7.2012. Marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the son of the present applicants on 25.6.2011. Within one year of said marriage on 6.5.2012, it is alleged that the deceased was set on fire by pouring kerosene by the present applicants, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. It is pointed out that on the very day the deceased was taken to hospital at Jaspur on 6.5.2012, from where she was referred on 10.5.2012 to Sushila Tewari Hospital, Haldwani, from where she got discharged on 20.5.2012. It is alleged that she was taken to Delhi for further treatment but died on 27.6.2012, i.e. two days after completion of one year of her marriage. It is further alleged in the First Information Report by the brother of the deceased that the applicants and their sons used to harass the deceased for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the report of the Mahila Helpline shows that actually deceased wanted to live with her husband in Nainital, but he could not take her with him. It is further pointed out that after the incident dated 6.5.2012, deceased appeared in her BA IInd year Examination on 10.5.2012, 11.5.2012, 14.5.2012 and 16.5.2012. It is pleaded on behalf of the applicants that the deceased was not given proper medical treatment by her brother and other relatives. Also, attention of this Court is drawn to Annexure-9 to the affidavit filed with the bail application showing call details, and on its basis it is argued that the father-in-law (applicant No, 1) had called 108, the emergency vehicle for taking the deceased to the hospital.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.