Daljit Kaur and others vs State of Punjab

L.N. Mittal, J.—Accused Daljit Kaur and her parents have filed this petition u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr. P.C.) for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 46 dated 13.07.2012 registered under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 and 498-A IPC at Police Station Begowal, District Kapurthala. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Petitioner No. 1 is sister of husband of the complainant whereas petitioners No. 2 and 3 are parents of husband of the complainant. Marriage of complainant with Charanjit Singh, son of the petitioners No. 2 and 3, was held on 28.07.2007. Harassment of the complainant started after two months of the marriage with demand of big car and gold and on account of less dowry. Husband of the complainant went to Italy soon after the marriage. The complainant went to Italy on 24.12.2008 i.e. one year five months after the marriage. A son was born there on 20.11.2009. She was harassed in Italy also. She was sent back to India in the year 2010. In October, 2010 she again went to Italy. From there she was allegedly taken to Germany and confined in a room for over a year because her papers were not in order. Then she was sent back to India without her passport etc. Again in India, she was harassed and beaten by the petitioners and their co-accused.

Counsel for the petitioners contended that marriage of petitioner No. 1 had been solemnized before the marriage of complainant with brother of petitioner No. 1. It is submitted that petitioner No. 1 was residing in her matrimonial home. It is also submitted that petitioners No. 2 and 3 also have nothing to do with the matrimonial dispute of the complainant with her husband.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. Insofar as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, she deserves the concession of anticipatory bail being married sister-in-law of the complainant, marriage of petitioner No. 1 having been solemnized before the marriage of complainant with brother of petitioner No. 1.

Accordingly, interim order dated 25.09.2012 is made absolute qua petitioner No. 1-Daljit Kaur and petition qua her stands allowed.

As regards petitioners No. 2 and 3, they do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail keeping in view the allegations made against them by the complainant.

Accordingly, the instant petition qua petitioners No. 2 and 3 is dismissed. Nothing in this order shall have any bearing on merits of the case.