Ajit Singh vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.—Sunita wife of 1st petitioner Ajit Singh gave a complaint under Sections 498-A, 419, 420 and 34, I.P.C. against (1) Ajit Singh (her husband), (2) Ajaib Singh, her brother-in-law, (3) Birwati (wife of abovesaid Ajaib Singh), and (4) Saroj Bhan, her sister-in-law, before the Judicial Magistrate, Nuh alleging and that she was married on 17.4.1993 that her parents had given sufficient dowry (including a Maruti car) as per list attached with the complaint. The complainant also alleged that the abovesaid four accused started harassing and maltreating her for not bringing adequate dowry and that Ajit Singh demanded Rs. 20,000/-, which was met. She has further alleged that in November, 1993, her brother Narender Singh''s marriage was to be performed and he had come to village Kherka Gujar to take the complainant with him, but Birwati and Saroj Bala stated that the complainant will not be sent unless Rs. 1 lakh was paid which was supported by the other co-accused. This sum of Rs. 1 lakh was also paid to accused 1 and 2. In April, 1994 the complainant was forced by the 1st accused to leave the house. During her stay at her parental house, she was operated. In July, 1995, when the complainant went alongwith her brother and her cousin to her in-laws'' house at village Kherka Gujar, the 1st accused refused entry into the house, and accused 3 and 4 quarrelled with them but the complainant was left at the house of the accused forcibly. Her car had been sold by the 1st accused. Later on, the 1st accused dropped the complainant at village Nihalgarh Gudi. The complainant lodged F.I.R. No. 43 of 1996 dated 22.2.1996 at Police Station, Taura, but the S.H.O. concerned joined hands with the accused and recommended the cancellation of the F.I.R. Therefore, the complaint was filed.

The learned Judicial Magistrate, Nuh summoned the accused to face charges under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34,1.P.C.

The petitioners herein namely Ajit Singh, Birwati and Saroj Bala moved an application for bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon but their application was dismissed. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court u/s 438, Cr.P.C. for bail in anticipation of arrest.

4.I have heard the Counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the marriage between the complainant and the 1st petitioner had taken place on 17.4.1992 and even though it was alleged by the complainant that soon after the marriage, she was ill-treated by the petitioners and the other accused Ajaib Singh, the F.I.R. was lodged only on 22.2.1996 at Police Station, Taura and even that F.I.R. after investigation, was recommended to be cancelled. Copy of the cancellation report is Annexurt P-2, wherein it has been stated that there is no truth in the allegations made by the complainant. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also contends that 2nd petitioner-Birwati is only the wife of Ajaib Singh, brother of Ajit Singh and that Ajaib Singh and Ajit Singh had partitioned between themselves and, therefore, there was absolutely no need for Birwati to make demands or to taunt the complainant. So far as the 3rd petitioner-Saroj Bala is concerned, the petitioners contend that she is a widow and living in village Anantpur and has got nothing to do with the affairs of the petitioner and the complainant. The petitioners have also produced the copy of the ration card issued to the 3rd petitioner-Saroj Bala @ Bala Devi and also the identity card issued to her by the Election Commission as Annexure P-5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the complainant was suffering from Rectal Cancer and was insisting that all the property in the name of Ajit Singh should be transferred to her and in order to pressurise the 1st petitioner and other family members, she had lodged the F.I.R. at Police Station, Taura. So far as the alleged sale of car is concerned, the petitioners contend that it is still with the complainant party and stands in the name of complainant-Sunita, as is evident from the receipt issued by the Transport Department dated 4.3.1999 (Annexure P-6). The petitioners contend that the allegations levelled against them are false and inspite of the death of Sunita subsequential due to Rectal Cancer, the complaint is being pursued by Narender Singh.

In these circumstances, taking into consideration the arguments put forward by the learned Counsel for the petitioners but, at the same time without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, the petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioners on the allegations found in the criminal complaint dated 21.5.1999 titled Smt Sunita v. Ajit Singh and Ors., pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Nuh, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/concerned Court. However, the petitioners shall abide by the provisions contained in Section 438(2), Cr.P.C.