Inder Singh vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Tersely, the facts & material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition, for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners, in a case of dowry death and emanating from the record, inter-alia, are that the marriage of Kiran (since deceased), daughter of complainant Bijender Khatri s/o Om Parkash (for brevity "the complainant"), was solemnized with Amit, son of Inder Singh (petitioner No. 1) on 25.2.2013, according to Hindu rites & ceremonies. The complainant (PW1), in his statement (Annexure P1), has specifically stated that he had performed the descent marriage by spending huge amount beyond his capacity and had given sufficient dowry to the accused. Just ten days after the marriage of his daughter, accused Amit (husband), Inder Singh (petitioner No. 1) (father-in-law), Roshni (mother-in-law), Sumit brother-in-law (Jeth) and Sushma (petitioner No. 2), sister-in-law (Jethani), started harassing her on account of bringing insufficient dowry. They gave beatings to Kiran and turned her out of the matrimonial home. The matter was, however, pacified and she was sent to her matrimonial home by the complainant. Some days thereafter, the accused pressurized her either to bring a sum of Rs. 50 lacs from her parents or to purchase a plot in Delhi in their names. She showed her inability to fulfill their illegal demand of Rs. 50 lacs on account of paucity of funds with her father. The accused gave beatings and again turned her out of the matrimonial home. She narrated the entire tale of her woe to her father (complainant) and expressed apprehension that the accused would endanger her life. Subsequently, about 25 days prior to the instant occurrence, the complainant persuaded his daughter to go to her matrimonial home on the assurance of the accused to keep her nicely, but in vain.

Likewise, the case of the prosecution further proceeds that on 3.1.2014, Kiran (deceased) had telephonically informed the complainant about the maltreatment and mis-behaviour of the accused towards her. In the morning of 5.2.2014 at about 8 A.M., she again made a call, talked and informed her mother that petitioners and their other co-accused were harassing, torturing and extending beatings to her on account of non-fulfillment of their illegal demand of Rs. 50 lacs to or purchase a plot in Delhi. On the same night at about 8.30 P.M., petitioner Inder Singh has telephonically informed the complainant that his daughter had sustained burn injuries and she was admitted in the hospital. As soon as, the complainant reached there, he found his daughter dead. According to the complainant that his daughter Kiran had been set ablaze and murdered by the accused.

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail in the FIR, in all, the prosecution claimed that the death of Kiran was caused by burns or bodily injuries and she died an unnatural death within about one year of her marriage and soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioners and their other co-accused, vide FIR No. 28 dated 6.2.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/ss. 304-B, 498-A, 120-B and 302 IPC by the police of Police Station Kundli, District Sonepat, in the manner depicted here-in-above.

Having exercised their right of bail and remained unsuccessful before Additional Sessions Judge, now the petitioners have preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of pre-arrest bail in the indicated criminal case in this Court.

After hearing the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.

Ex-facie, the arguments of learned senior counsel that the petitioners were found innocent by the police and since they were summoned to face the trial, in pursuance of application u/s. 319 Cr.PC as additional accused by the trial Court, so, they are entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

As is evident from the record that names of petitioners were specifically mentioned in the FIR (initial version). Very direct and serious allegations of, repeatedly beatings, demand of Rs. 50 lacs or plot in Delhi and cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry are assigned to the petitioners in the FIR in the manner described here-in-above.

Sequelly, the mere fact that petitioner No. 1, who is an official of Delhi Police, has managed and local police has exonerated the petitioners, for the reasons best known to it, ipso facto, is not a ground, muchless cogent, to grant them the concession of pre-arrest bail in a heinous offence of dowry death. Otherwise also, petitioner No. 1 was stated to have been exonerated on the plea of alibi. To me, the police cannot be assigned the duty to appreciate the evidence, which is the function of the Court to decide the plea of alibi of petitioner No. 1. Be that as it may, otherwise also, his absence at the relevant time of actual death of Kiran is immaterial for the purpose of offence of dowry death.

Moreover, considering the substantive evidence and the statement (Annexure P1) of complainant (PW1), on oath, the trial Court has examined the matter in the right perspective and came to the definite conclusion that there is sufficient evidence against the petitioners to try them along with their other main co-accused for the pointed offences, by way of summoning order dated 11.7.2014 (Annexure P2), which, in substance, is as under:-

In the complaint, which was lodged by the father of the deceased i.e. complainant it was alleged that shortly after the marriage of the deceased, specific allegations were leveled to the effect that the father in law, mother in law, Jeth, Jethani and husband of his daughter had started harassing her soon after her marriage on account of bringing insufficient dowry and she was sent back to her parental house on account of non fulfillment of their demand. They had raised a demand of Rs. 50.00 lacs for purchasing a plot in their name at Delhi. In his sworn testimony, complainant Bijender reiterated these allegations by specifically deposing that not only the accused already arraigned, but the proposed additional accused had also harassed her daughter and tortured her on account of bringing insufficient dowry and on account of demand of Rs. 50.00 lacs or a plot. The daughter of the deceased died within a period of less than one year of her marriage with accused Amit. The allegations make out a prima facie case that she died a dowry death on being subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry soon before her death. From the evidence coming on record, it is clear that the proposed accused namely Inder Singh and Sushma can be tried together with the accused already arraigned for the charges for which the co-accused have been facing trial and there is no need at this stage to form any opinion as to the guilt of the proposed accused and to hold that there is a reasonable prospect of the case ending in the conviction of the proposed accused. Though the accused already arraigned have taken a plea of alibi on behalf of proposed additional accused Inder Singh by placing on record certain documents to show that Inder Singh was performing duty in Delhi on the night of incident i.e. 5.2.2014 as he was a Delhi police employee and was not present at the spot, however, in my opinion, such like plea could not be taken by the accused already arraigned. Moreso, what is the effect of these documents can be considered during trial when evidence is led by both the parties. For the purpose of charges under Sections 498A and 304-B of IPC it is not required to be proved that a person accused of commission of such offences was present at the spot at the time of occurrence or not. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the application deserves to be allowed and accordingly the same is allowed and Inder Singh, father in law and Sushma, Jethani of the deceased are ordered to be summoned as additional accused for the purposes of facing trial along with the accused already arraigned for the commission of offences under sections 498A, 304-B read with section 34 of IPC and alternatively u/s 302 read with section 34 of IPC.

Meaning thereby, very serious allegations of commission of indicated offences are assigned to petitioners. Not only that, prima facie, there is sufficient evidence on record against them. At the same time, the legal presumption, as contemplated u/s. 113-B of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is fully attracted to their case. Therefore, to my mind, the petitioners are not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

Above-all, it is now well settled principle of law that anticipatory bail should not be granted lightly and in a routine manner. The order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal legal procedure. The order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road into the statutory normal procedure of trial. Similarly, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties and the public interest likely to be affected thereby.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of the facts & circumstances, oozing out from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners is hereby dismissed as such.

Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on the merits of the main case, in any manner, during the trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail only.