PRATAP RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Vinod Sharma, Advocate for the applicants and the A.G.A. for the prosecution.

(2.) ACCUSED applicant has applied for bail in case crime No. 1 of 2006 under section 304 -B, 498 -A I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act Patwari Circle, Khunoli, District Bageshwar. F.I.R. has been lodged against the accused persons on 18.9.2006 alleging therein that the marriage of deceased Meenu was performed with Harish Ram. After the marriage the accused and other family members started treating the deceased with cruelty and demanded dowry. The dead body of the deceased found hanging inside the house. According to the post mortem report the cause of death was asphyxia due to antimortem hanging. The husband of the deceased was not present in the village and he was living in Delhi. The applicants are the father in -law and Jeth of the deceased.

(3.) COUNSEL for the applicants has submitted that there is no evidence that they have ever demanded dowry and further the deceased was ever treated with cruelty soon before her death. Counsel for the applicants has submitted that the allegations made by the father of the deceased against the applicants are after thought and there is no evidence against the accused persons for treating the deceased with cruelty or demanding dowry.