Anita and Another vs State

On the basis of statement of Smt. Raj Bala, mother of deceased Sudesh, case was registered u/s 498-A/304B/34, IPC on 13th June, 2001. Submissions advanced by Mr. Ali, Advocate is that petitioner No.1 is the married sister-in-law of deceased while petitioner No.2 is her husband and both of them have been staying separately in village Barah which is at a distance of about 60 kms. away from the house of in-laws of the deceased in Narela; that the role attributed to petitioners in the FIR is that whenever the petitioners visited in-laws house of the deceased they used to instigate her father-in-law, mother-in-law and other family members in complaining that she had not brought scooter, colour TV and cash from her parents. In support of grant of anticipatory bail to petitioners, he has placed reliance on the decisions in Dolat Ram and Others Vs. State of Haryana, Promila Malhotra v. State, 1995 (2) C.C.C 257 (HC); and Madhu v. State of Punjab, 1998(3) C.C. C 464 (HC). On the other hand, while opposing bail, the submission advanced by Mr. Sharma, Additional P.P. for the State is that in such like cases power u/s 438, Cr.P.C. ought not be exercised by the Court. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Arun Kumar Roy, and Basant Kumar Shukla v. Komal Prasad and Ors, II (1992) CCR 1311. Having considered the ratio of the said decisions, the fact that petitioners have been staying separately in village Barah as also the role attributed to the petitioners in the FIR, I am inclined to admit them to anticipatory bail. In the event of their arrest they will be released on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of SHO/IO concerned. They will, however, join investigation as and when required by the I.O. dusty.

Petition allowed.