Khurshid and Another vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner-Khurshid son of Hasmuddin and his wife Sakina, unfortunate parents-in-law of Jamshida have preferred the instant petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against them along with their son Imran-main accused, by means of FIR No. 115 dated 06.04.2012, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 406, 506, 498A, 120B IPC, by the police of Police Station Taruru, District Mewat, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr. P.C. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on 23.07.2012:

At the very outset, learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the petitioners are parents-in-law of the complainant, general and vague allegations of cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry are assigned to them and no offence whatsoever is made out.

Heard.

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for

17.08.2012.

Meanwhile, the petitioners are directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of their arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit them to bail on their furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-each to his satisfaction.

At the very outset, learned State counsel, on instructions from H.C. Dharam Pal has submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. Moreover, petitioners are parents-in-law of the complainant. Very general and vague allegations of cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry are assigned to them. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. All the offences alleged against the petitioners are triable by the Magistrate.

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail to both the petitioners is accepted. The interim bail granted vide order dated 23.07.2012 is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of conditions, as contemplated u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C. Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioners do not cooperated or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this context.