Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/773/2024 on 2 January, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
Bail Application No. 01 of 2024
In
CRLA No. 773 of 2024
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the
appellant.
2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Brief Holder for the
State.
3. The instant Criminal Appeal was admitted by this
Court on 17.12.2024 and trial court record were summoned
and State was directed to file objection to the bail
application.
4. Now, State has filed the objection to the bail
application and trial court record has also been received.
5. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant
(convicts) against the judgment and order dated 09.12.2024
passed by learned Addl. Session Judge, Tehri Garhwal in
Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2020 whereby appellants have been
convicted under Section 304B, 498A, 323 IPC and under
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, maximum sentence
of 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 25,000/-
each for the offence under Section 304 B IPC, 2 years
rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the
offence under Section 498A IPC, six month rigorous
imprisonment each for the offence under Section 323 IPC,
six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-
each for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
6. Heard on bail application.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants/ applicants
submits that appellant nos. 1 and 2 - in laws of deceased
were on bail during trial and they have never misused their
bail. He further submits that appellant no. 3 - husband of
the deceased was arrested on 20.06.2020 and since then he is
in jail and he has served more than half of the sentence.
8. On merits, he submits that neither the post mortem
report nor the viscera report support the prosecution case.
Apart from this, learned counsel for the appellants submits
that conviction is based on the supplementary post-mortem
report prepared by PW4 Dr. Ankit Saini, Medical Officer,
who gave opinion, after carefully examination of the post
mortem report and FSL report that cause of death was due
to strangulation however, as per post-mortem report and
FSL report, there is no such opinion.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits
that PW4 - Dr. Ankit Saini, who submitted the
supplementary post-mortem report, in his cross
examination has stated that he has received the letter for
preparation of supplementary post-mortem report but since
two other doctors were on leave, and therefore,
supplementary post mortem report was prepared by him.
He further stated in the cross examination that
supplementary report should be prepared by the panel of
three doctors.
10. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the
appellants submits that the trial court has wrongly
convicted the appellants based on supplementary post-
mortem report, which was not prepared by the panel of
three doctors.
11. Learned State Counsel has not disputed this fact that
appellants no. 1 and 2 are aged person and in laws of the
deceased and they were on bail during trial and they never
misused the same and appellant no. 3 has completed more
than half of the sentence.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after gone through the trial court record as well as post-
mortem report as well as supplementary report and
material available on record, this Court is of the view that
since appellants no. 1 and 2 were on bail during trial and
they never misused the same and appellant no. 3 - husband
of the deceased has completed half of the sentence, all
appellants deserve for bail. Accordingly, without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case, bail application is
allowed.
13. Let all the appellants - Dilmani Joshi, Smt. Vimla
Devi and Rajeev Joshi be released on bail during the
pending of this appeal, on furnishing personal bond, by
each of them and two sureties, each of the like amount, by
each of them to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
14. Realization of the fine shall also remain suspended.
15. List this appeal in the month of October, 2025.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
02.01.2025
SKS
