Rekha vs State Of Uttarakhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2144 UK

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

          First Bail Application No. 1357 of 2022

Rekha                                              ........Applicant

                              Versus

State of Uttarakhand                            ........Respondent
Present:-
      Mr. V.S. Rathore, A.G.A. for the State.



Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant Rekha is in judicial custody in Case

Crime No.277 of 2019 (Sessions Trial No.07 of 2020),

under Section 304-B/498-A IPC & Section 3/4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Vikas Nagar,

District- Dehradun. She has sought her release on bail.

2. Heard learned State Counsel and perused the

record.

3. The deceased Preeti was married to co-accused

Sunil on 09.03.2019. She committed suicide at about 3

years of her marriage. The FIR was lodged by her father,

making allegations against the applicant and another that

they harassed and tortured the deceased for and in

connection with additional demand of dowry.

4. The applicant is in custody. She filed bail

application from jail. The bail application writes that one

of the co-accused was juvenile, who has been tried by the

Juvenile Justice Board ("JJ Board") and has been

acquitted because the informant and other witnesses did

not support the prosecution case. Along with the bail

application, the judgment of Inquiry No. 28 of 2020, State

Vs X and others, passed by the JJ Board, Dehradun, has

been filed. The judgment reveals that the informant, who

was examined as PW1, did not support the prosecution

case. PW2 and PW3, the brothers of the deceased, they

also did not support the prosecution case in the

proceeding before the JJ Board. In this Sessions Trial

against the applicant, the informant, who is the father of

the deceased, and others have supported the prosecution

case, including two brothers, who have also supported the

prosecution case in the proceedings before the JJ Board.

5. This factual position is admitted by learned

State Counsel.

6. The informant and his two sons did not

support the prosecution case against the co-accused in

the proceeding before the JJ Board. Though, in the trial

against the applicant, they have supported the

prosecution case.

7. 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.

8. The bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant be released on bail, on her

executing a personal bond to the satisfaction of Senior

Superintendent, District Jail, Dehradun.

10. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the

Senior Superintendent, District Jail, Dehradun, through

email, so that he may ensure the release of the applicant

at the earliest and inform this Court about it latest by

tomorrow evening, 4:00 PM.

11. Let a copy of this order be also forwarded to the

court concerned by email.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 18.07.2022 Ravi Bisht