Dayawanti vs State of Haryana

S.S. Saron, J.—Heard Counsel for the parties.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against her for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.

The dying declaration (Annexure P2) of Smt. Suman (deceased) was recorded by the Duty/Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak on 8.1.2010. It is stated by Suman (deceased) that on 7.1.2010 at 10.30 a.m. she was cooking meals in the kitchen, when her mother-in-law Bhuri (non-petitioner), her husband''s elder brother (Jeth) Rajesh (non-petitioner) and her husband''s elder brother''s wife (Jethani) Daya (petitioner) came in the kitchen. Her mother-in-law Bhuri sprinkled kerosene oil upon her and her ''Jeth'' set her on fire by lightning a match-stick. Her ''Jethani'' Dayawanti (petitioner) was standing there and witnessing everything. On being set on fire, she raised an alarm of ''mar dia mar dia'', whereupon her father-in-law, who was outside the house, came and extinguished the fire. The husband of the complainant namely Vinod had gone at 8.00 am to Delhi for performing his duty. After that, the mother-in-law, Jeth and Jethani of the deceased Suman brought her to the hospital for formality sake. It is stated that the mother-in-law of the complainant was always causing harassments to her. The said three i.e. mother-in-law, Jeth and Jethani of the complainant had set her on fire. It is also stated, by Suman (deceased) that she was 8 months, pregnant but despite that her mother-in-law, Jeth and Jethani were harassing her. Her mother-in-law was always saying that she (Suman-deceased) had brought less dowry articles due to which they were harassing her.

The challan in the case has been filed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani while declining bail to the petitioner vide order dated 17.3.2010 (Annexure P6) had inter alia observed that it was not in dispute that the petitioner Dayawanti (Jethani) had two minor children and she was in custody since 30.1.2010. It was observed that it was well-settled that while considering the bail application, nature and gravity of the offence was to be seen and long custody of the accused could not be the only ground for the grant of concession of bail.

It may be noticed that the petitioner has two children and one of them who is 5 months old, is with the petitioner in jail. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dalbir Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab Crl. Misc. No. 7915 of 2006 in CRA No. 907-DB of 2005 vide order dated 31.3.2006 (Annexure P5) while suspending the sentence of the accused observed that continuous detention of the two women would lead to detention of their children as well. This, it was observed, may cause psychological harm to the children and may make them misfits in society. In the circumstances, it was held that two women ought to be granted suspension of sentence and this would enable them to take the children out of jail environment and save them from further harm.

In the present case, the dying declaration (Annexure P2) of Suman (deceased) shows that the actual act of sprinkling the kerosene was done by the mother-in-law of Suman (deceased) namely Bhuri (non-petitioner) while the match-stick had been lit by her Jeth namely Rajesh (non-petitioner). The petitioner was standing there and was witnessing everything and did not interfere. Therefore, the petitioner did not actually take any part in setting Suman on fire as per the dying declaration. The effect of the same is to be considered by the learned trial court after evidence has been lead. Besides, it is a fact that she has a five months old baby with her in jail.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances and particularly the fact that a five months old baby is with the petitioner, in jail, it would be just and expedient in the facts and circumstances to extend the concession of bail to her.

Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the petitioner on her furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani shall be admitted to bail. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merit of the case and the learned trial court shall consider the case against the accused on the basis of evidence and material as adduced before it and uninfluenced by any observations made herein.