Nazir Deen vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.—The petitioners have approached this Court u/s 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in case FIR No. 63 of 2014 dated 22.4.2014 registered at Police Station Amb, District Una, H.P. under Sections 498-A, 354, 506, 504 and 34 IPC.

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is the wife of Sajid Khan and daughter-in-law of Nazir Deen, the two petitioners in this case. It is claimed by the complainant that she has married to petitioner Sajid Khan on 17.6.2012 as per the Muslim rites and customs at village Panjoa Ladoli, Tehsil Amb, District Una. The marriage was duly consummated, however, no child was born out of this legal wedlock. It is alleged that soon after the marriage the accused persons started treating the complainant with cruelty and the accused persons started taunting her for bringing less dowry and raised various demands like cash, gold ornaments etc. It was further stated that she was taunted on the ground that whatever had been given by the parents of the complainant was cheap and not as per their status. The accused demanded Rs. 40,000/- from the complainant with the request to return the same after some time. The complainant was asked to fulfill this demand because her father and brother are in government service. It is alleged that this amount of Rs. 40,000/- was given in good faith.

It is further allegation of the complainant that the marriage was solemnized when the complainant was in service at Delhi and accused Sajid Khan was employed as Engineer in some private firm. The family of the accused asked the complainant to leave the job and to remain at the house at Panjoa. The complainant accordingly left the job in the month of July, 2013 and started living at Panjoa. After the father of the complainant gave Rs. 40,000/- for the betterment of the life of the complainant, the accused persons are started to have become greedy and demanded more money on various pretext. It is also alleged that the petitioner Sajid Khan had compelled the complainant to maintain illicit relation with other petitioner Nazir Deen and his friends. He also compelled the complainant to have unnatural sex with him. It was claimed that Nazir Deen, father-in-law of the complainant was habitual of taking liquor and had abused the complainant as well as her parents. While on the other hand, the petitioner Sajid Khan had openly proclaimed that his marriage with the complainant was just a fake marriage and he wants to get married with some Hindu girl and many times had received telephone calls and message, the detail whereof were lateron deleted. The complainant tolerated all these physical and mental cruelty with the hope that petitioner Sajid Khan and his family members would reforms themselves and better sense may prevail upon them.

On 19.12.2013 when the complainant was sleeping in her room, the petitioner Nazir Deen is alleged to have come in her room and tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant which incident was narrated to the other family members of the petitioners. It is further claimed that the complainant was treated with cruelty throughout and ultimately on 14.2.2014 the complainant was ousted from her matrimonial house after having been mercilessly beaten. It was further claimed that the dowry articles of the complainant were still lying in the house of the accused and the same had not been returned. On these allegations, the FIR was lodged against the petitioners.

The other family members including mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant, who were also arrayed as accused, however, have already been let out on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Una.

I have heard Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Rohit Bharol, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. V.K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State and Mr. Pawan Gautam, learned counsel for the complainant.

The learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioners have been charged with very serious offences and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be granted bail. He has also submitted the status report. Same arguments were adopted by the learned counsel for the complainant. On the other hand, Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that his client have been falsely roped into this only because the relationship has gone sour would not give the complainant a right to level false and frivolous allegations against the petitioners which are totally unbelievable apart from being highly unimaginable.

I have gone through the records of the investigation carefully and meticulously.

From the record of the investigation carried out so far, it appears that prior to the registration of this FIR, there has not been any complaint whatsoever made by the complainant to any authority or person(s) on the same and similar allegations as contained in the FIR. Therefore, prima-facie what appears is that the relationship between the complainant and her husband Sajid Khan had turned hostile which may have resulted in the lodging of the present FIR. Not only the complainant but even her family members do not appear to have approached any authority or person complaining about the matters as mentioned in the FIR. Therefore, without commenting upon the conduct of the complainant or her family members and relatives any further, lest it affects the case of the prosecution, I find this to be a fit case for grant of bail. The petitioners are otherwise the permanent resident of Village Panjoa Ladoli, Tehsil Amb, District Una and have deep roots in the society.

Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, both the petitions being Cr. MP(M) Nos. 611 and 612 of 2014 are allowed and the bail granted to the petitioners deserve to be confirmed and accordingly, interim order passed by this Court on 22.5.2014 is confirmed, however, subject to the following conditions:

(a) That both the petitioners shall furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amb, District Una, H.P.

(b) That they shall make themselves available for the purpose of interrogation as and when required and shall cooperate with the investigating agency to conduct the investigation in a manner so as to take it to its logical end.

(c) They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever.

(d) They shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

(e) They shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse their liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amb, District Una, H.P. is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court vide communication No. HHC.VIG/Misc.Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.3.2013.

Any observation made hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the same have been made only for the purpose of deciding these bail petitions and therefore the trial court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.

Petitions stand disposed of.

Copy dasti.