Mathra Dass and others vs State of Punjab and another

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail u/s 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no. 256 dated 08.12.2011, under Sections 498A / 406 IPC, registered at police station City Ferozepur. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Feropur dismissing bail application filed by the petitioners.

Petitioners-accused are husband and parents-in-law of respondent no. 2-complainant. Notice of motion was issued on the assurance on behalf of the petitioners that they were ready to rehabilitate the complainant and minor child in the matrimonial home. It was also contended that petitioner no. 3 had also filed a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. The parties were also directed to appear before Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for making efforts for reconciliation. Reconciliation was effected between the parties due to intervention of Mediation and Conciliation Centre. However, later on petitioner no. 3 refused to keep respondent no. 2 in the matrimonial home though she alongwith the child was ready to go to the matrimonial home.

It has been contended by Learned Counsel for petitioners-accused that so far as petitioners no. 1 and 2 i.e. parents-in-law are concerned, they are having no concern with the married life of petitioner no. 3 and complainant and hence, interim order qua petitioners no. 1 and 2 may be made absolute.

Bail application has been vehemently opposed by Learned Counsel for respondent-State as well as by Learned Counsel for complainant on the plea that there are specific allegations against petitioners no. 1 and 2 of physical violence and that medico legal examination of the injuries sustained by respondent no. 2 at the instance of petitioners was also conducted and that Daily Dairy Report was also registered by the police in this regard and however, no action was taken by the police on the same. It is also submitted that dowry articles are yet to be recovered.

Complainant had given a very detail and natural version of the occurrence in her complaint on the basis of which the present FIR, which has been reproduced by the petitioner in the petition, was registered. Dowry articles including jewellery were specifically entrusted to all the three accused. Rs. 50,000/- were paid by father of the complainant to her husband and father-in-law. She gave birth to a child on 24.09.2010 and again demand started. There are specific allegations of injuries being caused to her by her husband and mother-in-law when demand of motorcycle was not met. Later on Rs. 10,000/- were paid by father of complainant and however, demand of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of motorcycle persisted. In the last week of June, 2011, she alongwith minor child was turned out of the matrimonial home by giving her beatings. Panchayat was convened on 08.07.2011. Even Panchayat people were also insulted. However, the complainant was sent to the matrimonial home. On 23.07.2011 again acts of physical violence were committed by all the accused. Another Panchayat was convened but to no effect. Injuries on the person of complainant were also examined by the Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Ferozepur. Daily Dairy Report no. 31 dated 25.07.2011 was also entered in the police station Sadar, Muktsar regarding the occurrence. There are specific allegations that on 06.07.2011, petitioner no. 3-husband and petitioner no. 1-father-in-law alongwith some other persons came to her parental house and raised threat to her. Dowry articles are yet to be recovered. There are specific allegations of acts of physical violence against all the petitioners-accused.

Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners-accused.

Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by Mathra Dass, Ramana and Satish Kumar is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit. Interim order dated 24.02.2012 already granted in favour of petitioners stands vacated.