Kulbushan Sharma vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.—Heard Counsel for both the sides.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the first petitioner is the brother-in-law, who was only thirteen and half years old at the time of marriage and there was no need for him to make any demand of dowry from the complainant.

So far as the second petitioner is concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that she is widowed sister-in-law, while the third respondent is the mother-in-law.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the marriage had taken place on 29.5.1994 and general and vague allegations have been made that the petitioners herein alongwith father-in-law used to trouble her for bringing less dowry, used to beat her and that they turned her out of the house, but there is no specific allegation. He also points out that for the first time, it is stated specifically that on the date of the complaint namely, 23.3.1999, the petitioners allegedly gave beatings. He also contends that there is no allegation that there was any demand for dowry at that time. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also contends that the petitioners have been given separate ration card also as is evident from Annexures P1 and P2, which according to him shows that they were living separately.

Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand concedes that the petitioners have joined investigation and also that certain articles were recovered from the husband.

In these circumstances without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail.

In the event of arrest of the petitioners on the allegations found in the F.I.R. mentioned in this petition the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

However, they shall abide by the provisions of Section 438(2), Cr.P.C. Disposed of.