BA1/1718/2016 of Arjun Vs State Of Uttarakhand

(Misc. Appl. No.3142 of 2017) In BA1 No.1718 of 2016

Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.

Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.

Heard learned counsel for the

parties.

Rejoinder affidavit is taken on record. Misc. application stands disposed of.

Applicant Arjun has moved this bail application seeking regular bail in connection with Case Crime No.31 of 2016 under section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Manglore, District Haridwar.

It is the submission of learned

counsel for the applicant that applicant

has no criminal history and he has falsely been implicated in the case. It is submitted that the FIR was registered under sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act against the entire family. Final report was filed against four family members whereas charge sheet was filed against the applicant under section 302 IPC. It is submitted that the basis of filing of charge sheet is the confessional statement given by the applicant before the Investigating Officer. It is submitted that when the allegation made under sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C and 3/4

Dowry Prohibition Act under which the FIR was registered were not found true by the investigating officer then entire story of FIR shall be treated as false. It is also submitted that no motive is shown behind the murder of the wife of the applicant. It is also submitted that the confessional statement given by the applicant have not filed. In support of this, learned counsel for the applicant referred the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1966 AIR 199 Aghnoo Nagesia vs State of Bihar. She further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 04.02.2016.

Learned Deputy Advocate General opposed the bail application and submits that death is unnatural. He submits that whatever is mentioned in the FIR is supported by the post mortem report. It is also submitted that the applicant being husband of the deceased was responsible for the safety of his wife. He submitted that in the FIR it is written that the applicant himself informed the father of the decease that he has murders his wife by slitting the throat.

Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I do not think that this is fit case where bail should be granted. The bail application is rejected.

(V.K. Bist, J.) 30.06.2017