HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Bail Application No.276 of 2024 Narendra Kashyap …..….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Mani Kumar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.395 of 2022, dated 24.09.2022, under Sections 304-B and 302 IPC, Police Station Kiccha, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. This is second bail application of the applicant. His firs bail application has already been dismissed as withdrawn on 20.06.2024. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The appellant was married to the deceased on 30.11.2019. But, in the intervening night of 22/23 September, 2021, the informant received an information that the deceased body was hanging in a room. FIR was lodged raising suspicion that it is the applicant, who killed the deceased in connection with demand of dowry. The informant is the father of the deceased. 2 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is in custody since 24.09.2022; the informant has already been examined as PW1; after his examination-in-chief, he moved an application for transfer of the case to some other court; an inquiry was conducted with regard to threat perception and the CO Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar reported that no threat was extended to the PW1, the informant and his report is not correct. It is argued that on the similar grounds that informant had filed the transfer application before the Hon’ble Surpeme Court bearing Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.38 of 2024, which was rejected on 19.09.2024. He would submit that in the transfer application that was filed in this Court on 21.09.2023, proceedings of the trial have been stayed. It is about 18 months that the trial has been stayed. 5. These factual aspects have not been denied by the learned State counsel. 6. Delay is one of the reasons for considering bail. Generally bail is denied until the witnesses are examined. But, here is the case which pertains to 24.09.2022. Since then, more than two years have completed and the trial is stayed for about 18 months. 3 7. Having considered the nature of offence and the delay caused in the matter, 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 his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount; to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 27.03.2025 Sanjay