Mange Ram vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner Mange Ram son of Ram Niwas has preferred the instant petition for the grant of regular bail, in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused & wife, namely, Kamlesh, son Deepak (husband of the deceased), daughters Pinki, Ritu and Ramesh, husband of Ritu, vide FIR No. 118 dated 15.6.2012 (Annexure P1), for the commission of offences punishable under sections 498-A and 304-B read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Uklana, Distt. Hisar, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr. PC. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this respect.

The prosecution claimed that the marriage of Babita (deceased) was solemnized with main accused Deepak on 1.10.2011. The accused were stated to have treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. She died an unnatural death. Admittedly, during the course of investigation, Pinki, Ritu and Ramesh, husband of Ritu, were found innocent by the police. They were not challaned. There were general and vague allegations against the petitioner, who is father-in-law of the deceased, with regard to cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry.

Moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 26.6.2012, since then, he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. Since only one witness has yet been examined by the prosecution, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. It is also not a matter of dispute that Kamlesh, co-accused and wife of the petitioner, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court, by means of order dated 16.11.2012 (Annexure P3), rendered in CRM No. M-34340 of 2012. As Kamlesh, co-accused, has already been granted the benefit of regular bail, therefore, I see no ground not to grant the same concession of regular bail to the present petitioner under the same set of circumstances.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of the facts & circumstances, emanated from the record, as narrated here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, the instant petition for regular bail is accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail.