Karan Singh vs State of Haryana

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

This order will dispose the above Crl. Misc. No. 14672M of 1996 and Crl. Misc. No. 6082M of 1996.

The petitioners were arrested in connection with offence under Sections 304B and 498 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation of death of Sunil Kumari wife of the petitioner, Rajinder Singh. The petitioner, Karan Singh, is the brother of Rajinder Singh. The complaint was lodged by the father of the petitioner, Sukhbir Singh s/o Bhagwan Singh.

Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. The death of the deceased took place on 2.2.1996. The deceased was married on 25.4.1993. The allegations which are levelled against the petitioner and the other accused in the complaint FIR can be stated in short as below :

Dowry articles given according to the capacity of the complainant;

Fifteen days after the marriage when the son of the complainant, Rajesh, went to bring his sister, the motherinlaw Savitri, sisterinlaw Kamlesh, brotherinlaw, Ravinder and husband, Rajinder Singh protested for not giving them scooter and colour T.V. and that when the sister comes back, she should come with the above articles;

Daughter told her mother that the motherinlaw and brotherin law (Nandoi) had said as to what her father has given them;

On the next day, motherinlaw, Savitri, sisterinlaw Kamlesh came to Dadri to his house and demanded colour T.V. After four and a half months, when his daughter went to the inlaws, the motherinlaw, Savitri Devi, sisterinlaw Kamlesh, husband Rajinder Singh brotherinlaw (dever), Jitender and Karan Singh started beating and harassing her.

After this his daughter visited his house once or twice and disclosed her worries weeping. On 1.4.1994 he called the motherinlaw, Savitri and gave her Rs. 30,000/.

After some days, "they" again started demanding dowry and harassed his daughter. One day, motherinlaw Savitri, sisterinlaw Kamlesh, brotherinlaw (dever), Jitender beat his daughter with the belt and pulled her hair and said that they would continue beating her in this manner till her parents had given them colour T.V. and scooter.

Sometimes in or after August 1994, Jitender, brotherinlaw (dever) threatened that in case colour T.V. and scooter were not given, they will repent. Some days thereafter, brotherinlaw, Rajinder Singh and Jitender came to his house and begged pardon and promised that they would not harass his daughter;

Because of further harassment, the Sarpanch of the village Dadri, father of the complaint, his brother and some respectables were taken on 2.4.1995 and held panchayat in the village. In the panchayat, the "in laws" of the daughter begged pardon and assured that in future she would not be harassed. At that time, the petitioner, Karan Singh asked for the key to the room and the key was handed over to him. On 28.6.95, the petitioner, Rajinder, dever Jitender again demanded colour T.V. and scooter.

On 20.8.1995 as for year it should be, Rajinder, Jitender, Karan Singh, sisterinlaw Kamlesh got enraged and started quarreling with him when he told them not to harass his daughter.

On 3.9.1995, the complainant gave complaint to the police. Thereafter, respectables of the village gathered and compromise was effected and assurance given.

Even after the compromise, after some time, the daughter of the complainant told him that "these people" were demanding Rs. 15,000/ more.

On 2.2.1995, the complainant learnt about the death of his daughter.

From the above reasons, it has to be decided whether the petitioners have taken an active part so as to involve them in the offence under Sections 304B and 498 IPC. The death of the deceased has taken place because of burning. Even upto 3.3.1995, the petitioners had taken an active part in demand of dowry. The harassment had continued and because of the above allegations, through at certain places, the allegations were attributed to "these persons". It cannot be stated that the petitioners have not taken active part in harassing the deceased for dowry. The bail applications of the petitioners, therefore, have to be dismissed.

I may, however, make it clear that these observations are restricted to these bail applications only and shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case when it comes up for trial.

In view of the above reasons, these bail applications are dismissed.