HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 149 of 2023

Sher Singh and others

...Applicants

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

...Respondents

Present:-

Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the applicants.

Mr. V.S. Rawat, Brief Holder for the State.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicants seek anticipatory bail in FIR/Case

Crime No. 113 of 2023, under Sections 304B IPC, Police

Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3.

According to the FIR, the deceased Vandana was

married on 08.03.2018 to co-accused Bhupendra Yadav,

who happens to be the son of the applicant nos. 1 and 2

and brother of the applicant no.3. The FIR records that after

marriage the deceased was harassed and tortured for

additional demand of dowry. The deceased went under

depression. She was not treated upon. Finally, on

25.02.2023, she was killed.

2

4.

It is the case of the applicants that, in fact, the

deceased was unwell; she was under Psychiatric treatment

prior to her marriage; she was under depression; she

herself, during her lifetime, lodged a report against the

informant, her mother for cruelty, not only this, it is argued

that it is the case of the applicants that proceedings were

done before the Mahila Helpline, in which, the informant

never appeared. The factum of deceased’s un-wellness was

then recorded in the proceeding of Mahila Helpline.

5.

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit

that in its counter affidavit, the State has not denied the

fact that the deceased had complained against her mother

and also that in the Mahila Helpline proceedings, the

mother of the deceased, who is informant did not appear. It

is also argued that, in fact, the deceased was unwell.

4.

Learned

State

counsel

would

submit

that

admittedly, the deceased had once given a complaint against

her mother and in the counselling proceedings, it is stated

that the informant did not appear and the deceased was

unwell.

5.

Learned counsel for the applicants has referred to

the complaint that was made by the deceased against the

informant, her mother and also the proceedings of the

Mahila Helpline.

3

6.

Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court

is of the view that this is a case fit for anticipatory bail.

7.

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

8.

In the eventuality of arrest, the applicants shall

be enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to their furnishing a

personal bond with two sureties, each in the like amount, to

the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. In addition to it,

the applicants shall also comply with the following

conditions:

(i)

The

applicants

shall

co-operate

with

the

investigation.

(ii) The

applicants

shall

not

approach

any

witness/victim in any manner, whatsoever.

(iii) The applicants shall not leave the country

without prior permission of the concerned court.

(iv)

The applicants shall deposit their passport with

the IO. The passport may only be returned by the

order of the court concerned. In case the

applicants does not have passport, they shall give

an undertaking to that effect to the IO.

(v)

The applicants shall also give an undertaking on

(i), (ii) & (iii) above.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

19.09.2023

Jitendra