High CourtsSingle Bench

Krishan Kumar and Another vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 29 July 2013 · Citation: (2013) 07 P&H CK 0367

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438, 438(2) · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 406, 498A
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
CRM No. M-12068 of 2013 (O and M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 656 words

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioners-Krishan Kumar Verma son of Ram Chander Verma and his wife Amarjeet Kaur, unfortunate parents-in-law of complainant Sonu Verma, have preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them along with their son Rewat Verma (husband and main accused), vide FIR No. 105 dated 03.03.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, by the police of Police Station Civil Lines, District Rohtak, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

2.

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 present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

3.

During the course of preliminary hearing, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Paramjeet Singh, J.), has passed the following order on April 12, 2013: -

The present petition has been filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No. 105 dated 3.3.2013, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak, under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner No. 1 is the father-in-law and petitioner No. 2 is the mother-in-law; the allegations in the FIR are vague; the only allegation is against petitioner No. 2 with regard to alleged taunting for bringing insufficient dowry.

Notice of motion to the Advocate General, Haryana for 13.5.2013.

Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be admitted to interim bail on their furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioners shall, however, join the investigation as and when called for and they will also abide by the conditions as specified u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.

4.

At the very outset, on the instructions from SI Leela Ram, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. Very vague and general allegations of cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry, are assigned to them. In that eventuality, whether indicated offences are made out against them (petitioners), would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court, in view of the law laid by the Hon''ble Apex Court in case Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and Others, and Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, as no other legally required specific role or overt-act is attributed to them.

5.

Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that main accused Rewat Verma (husband of the complainant) was arrested, interrogated, remained in judicial custody and was allowed bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, by means of order dated March 15, 2013. There is no history of their (petitioners) previous involvement in any other criminal case. All the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even, since the prosecution has not submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

6.

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioners by this Court, by virtue of order dated April 12, 2013, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C. However, the petitioners are directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Agency. In case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this respect.