Kirpa Shankar vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.

Anita wife of Prem Batham complained against her husband Prem Batham, her brotherinlaw Kirpa Shankar, the petitioner herein, and the other family members of her husband on the ground that she was being treated cruelly in relation to the demand for dowry and that the articles of dowry entrusted have not been returned to her. On the basis of the allegation made by the complainant, F.I.R. No. 955 dated 14.10.1998 came to be registered at Police Station N.I.T., Faridabad under Sections 498A and 506 I.P.C.

The complainant had alleged in her complaint that on the 7th day after her marriage, when her father and brother had come to her marital home and asked her inlaws to send her with them, petitioner Kirpa Shankar, her husband, her brotherinlaw and others had demanded Rs. 25,000/ from her father. She has also alleged that she was given beating by them. According to her Rs. 25,000/ was paid to the petitioner Kirpa Shankar on 5.8.1997. She has also alleged that during the period of six months after her marriage when she was in her marital home, her husband, motherinlaw, brotherinlaw (jeth), sisterinlaw used to pressurize her to bring Rs. 1 lakh. She has also stated that her brotherinlaw, sisterinlaw and fatherinlaw i.e. all her inlaws tried to burn her alive on two occasions. She has stated that she was brought by her father from the house of her inlaws on 6.8.1997 and ever since she has been residing in her father''s house. According to the complainant, all the dowry articles are in the possession of her inlaws.

I have heard counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file.

As pointed out already, the allegations have generally been made in a vague fashion against all the inlaws except the allegation that the petitioner demanded Rs. 25,000/ on the 7th day of her marriage and was also paid this amount on 5.8.1997, and that the petitioner and others pressurized her to bring Rs. 1 lakh. Though these allegations pertained to the year 1997, the F.I.R. has been lodged only on 14.10.1998. There is no explanation as to why no F.I.R. was lodged earlier because even according to the petitioner, she had come to her marital home on 6.8.1997 and has been residing with her father ever since. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the other accused including the fatherinlaw, motherinlaw of the complainant have been released on bail. The petitioner has also extracted the copy of the order of Hon''ble Mr. Justice M.L. Singhal on the application made by fatherinlaw, motherinlaw which shows that it was submitted that whatever articles of dowry which were lying with the husband, they have been recovered and no article of dowry is lying with other accused. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondentState is that it is the petitioner who being the eldest brother of the husband of the complainant he is dominating the affairs of the family, but we find that the fatherinlaw and motherin law of the complainant are also alive and have been granted bail. Therefore, it is yet to the established that it is the petitioner who is the senior brotherinlaw of the complainant who was in command of the affairs of the family.

In these circumstances, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner, who is only the brotherinlaw of the complainant, is entitled to the relief of bail.

Accordingly, the interim order of bail granted to the petitioner is confirmed. The petition is allowed. In case the petitioner is sought to be arrested on the allegations found in the F.I.R. mentioned in this petition, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall join investigation if called for and abide by the provisions of Sections 438(2) Cr.P.C.