Bimla Rani vs State of Haryana

M.L. Koul, J.

Notice to A.G. Haryana.

Mr. Vimal Kumar, Advocate for the State of Haryana, accepts notice.

This application for grant of anticipatory bail has been moved within the ambit of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the petitioners are facing investigation in F.I.R. No. 145 dated 27.6.1996 registered by Police Station, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City under Sections 406/498A/506 read with Section 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The case as set up and projected on behalf of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 Bimla Rani the motherinlaw of the complainant is an aged lady of more than 55 years of age; petitioner No. 2 Ms. Nimmi is a school teacher and is a qualified girl with a degree of B.A.B.Ed and is at present working as a teacher in Dev Samaj School, Ambala City for the last two years ; petitioner No. 3 is unmarried and is aged about 18 years and is student of B.A. Part II in Dev Samaj College, Ambala City; petitioner No. 4 is the husband of the complainant who is working as Salesman on a Chemist shop known as P.S. Pharma, Patel Road, Ambala City since 1990 and petitioner No. 5 is a married girl of petitioner No. 1 and has two daughters aged about 4 years and nine months. At the moment she is living with her husband at Delhi.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners earlier moved an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala who although found that the alleged articles have been recovered did not see any justification for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

I have gone through the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and it is found that the police got enough time to conduct the investigation in the matter and almost the dowry articles have been recovered. Even as per the application of the petitioners, the articles provided to the complainant in the marriage from the side of her inlaws have been also taken away by the police and seized.

Having regard to the circumstances of the case for the purposes of anticipatory bail it would not be out of place to mention here that Miss Nimmi and Miss Pooja in no manner can be found to hold the entrustment of the dowry articles and the other petitioner who is another sisterinlaw of the complainant is married outside the matrimonial house of the complainant and lives in Delhi. She can also be distantly connected with the holding of the property brought by the complainant as a dowry. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 are directly connected with the commission of the cime. Hence the anticipatory bail in their favour is rejected.

In view of the observations made above, I feel that it is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted in favour of Miss Nimmi, Miss Pooja and Mrs. Jyoti wife of Varinder Kumar. They are therefore directed that in the event of their arrest they be released on bail in the amount of Rs. 10,000/ each with one surety and personal recognizance bonds in the like amount each to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer. The application is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGMENT accordingly.