Manphool vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.—On the complaint lodged by Neetu, the FIR in question has been registered tinder Sections 498-A, 406 and 506, IPC wherein the complainant has alleged as follows :

The complainant was married with Krishan Kumar on 18.2.1999 and the accused were not satisfied with the dowry given, Therefore, they started beating the complainant. The complainant saw her husband sharing, the bed with her Jethani, and when she objected, she was beaten by her husband. Her husband asked her to bring Rs. 50000/- from her parents, and on her refusal, all the family members started committing more atrocities on her. Her Jeth and her mother-in-law (2nd petitioner herein) dropped her in front of her parents'' house. On 15.3.1999, her husband was given Rs. 50,000/-. After a few days, at the instigation of his father (first petitioner) and brothers, the complainant''s husband demanded a motorcycle. On refusal, they started beating her; The complainant became pregnant. Her Jethani Asha and all the family members were saying that they should get the pregnancy terminated; Her Jeth asked her husband to catch hold of her and gave a bottle in which there were tablets: Her husband and her Jeth caught hold of her, while her Jethani and mother-in-law opened her mouth and administered the tablets to her. The doctor, who checked her, told that her child had died in the womb. The complainant was made to sign a paper and Anita got her aborted.

The petitioners, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant alongwith other applied for bail before the Session Court, Gurgaon, but the petitioners were declined bail.

Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court u/s 438, Cr.P.C. for bail in anticipation of arrest.

I have heard the Counsel for both the sides and pursued the record on file.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners regarding the demand or acceptance of any dowry, and that it has only been specifically alleged that it is her husband, who wanted Rs. 50,000/- and got the same. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also contends that except the general and vague allegations made against the mother-in-law, there are no allegations against the father-in-Jaw also. He also contends mat it is stated that Anita got the complainant aborted, who is not a relation but is nurse. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are also living separately. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge also shows that the petitioners have been living separately as evidenced by the Ration Card produced. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also contends that it is seen from the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate himself that the dowry articles have been recovered, and in these circumstances, there is no necessity for any custodial interrogation of the petitioners.

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

In the event of arrest of the petitioners on the allegations found in the FIR mentioned in this petition, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. However, if the petitioners are required for the purpose of investigation, the Investigating Officer shall issue notice to them giving sufficient time and on such notice, the petitioners shall join investigation. Petitioners shall abide by the provisions of Section 438(2), Cr.P.C.