Mohinder Kaur vs State of Punjab

K. S. Kumaran, J.—F.I.R. No. 83 dated 8.4.1999 has been registered at Police StationCity, Malerkotla under Sections 498A, 506 and 34 I.P.C. and under Dowry Prohibition Act on the statement of Harwindcr Kaur, wherein among other things, it has been alleged that she was married to Narinder Singh, the son of the petitioner herein, in the year 1997, that the petitioner was given 3 sets of gold articles weighing 15 tolas; that her in-laws started taunting her stating that the complainant had brought inadequate dowry, and that the petitioner has been asking for more dowry and harassing her. She has also alleged that her mother-in-law and others told her that she should bring Rs. 5 or 7 lakhs from her parents and she was also threatened with danger to her life if she failed to do so. She has also alleged that though a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs was given to her father-in-law, they kept harassing and beating her. She has also alleged that she was also turned out of the house in August, 1998, retaining her dowry articles.

The petitioner moved the Sessions Court, Sangrur for bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C., but her application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court for the same relief.

I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though petitioner is the mother-in-law of the complainant, she has been divorced from her husband (by mutual consent) in the year 1983 itself and that she has been living separately at Malerkotla, while the complainant and her husband are living separately and, therefore, there is no question of her harassing the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the dowry articles have also been recovered and nothing remains to be recovered. In this connection, he has produced a copy of the order of the learned S.D.J.M., Malerkotla (an-nexure P-2) on the bail application of the co-accused, wherein the learned Magistrate has pointed out that nothing remains to be''recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations aboul cruelty are also not specific.

The petitioner was granted interim bail and the learned counsel for the State also concedes that the petitioner has joined investigation.

Learned counsel for the complainant, of course, contends that the petitioner is still living with her husband even after the alleged divorce, that the dowry articles were recovered from the house of the petitioner and there are still more articles to be recovered. But this controversy as to whether there are some more articles of dowry to be recovered or not, is not a matter which can stand in the way of the petitioner in getting bail.

In these circumstances, taking into consideration the arguments put forward, but at the same time without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, this petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner on the allegations found in the F.I.R. mentioned in this petition, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. However, the petitioner shall abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Petition allowed.