Nirmal Kaur vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Tersely, the facts & material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner and emanating from the record, inter-alia, are that the marriage of complainant Satwinder Kaur, daughter of Gurmel Singh (for brevity "the complainant"), was solemnized with Mukesh Lal s/o Parshottam Lal on 13.2.2009, according to Sikh rites & ceremonies in village Rasoolpur, District Hoshiarpur. Her parents were stated to have spent an amount of Rs. 5 lacs in the marriage beyond their capacity and have given the following articles besides other customary gifts:-

motor cycle, fridge, cooler, TV, Almirah, washing machine, furniture, sofa -set, dressing table, dinning table, utensils, beddings,

gold ring and chain to accused No. 1 Mukesh Lal,

gold ring to father-in-law,

gold ear ring to mother-in-law (petitioner),

gold ring to maternal uncle of Mukesh Lal,

gold ring to uncle (Chacha) of Mukesh Lal,

gold ear ring chain, ring and silver anklets

Sequelly, the complainant claimed that the gifts worth Rs. 20,000/- were also given to the accused at the time of Phera ceremony after marriage. After one month of solemnization of the marriage, her husband Mukesh Lal went abroad and she was residing with her in-laws'' family (petitioner). Thereafter, she and her other co-accused have started taunting her on the ground that her parents did not give dowry articles as per their status in the marriage. They started demanding car. They also used to beat and pressurize her to bring more dowry. The parents of the complainant could not fulfill the illegal demand of petitioner. Then, they threw her out of the matrimonial home on 22.8.2010. She narrated the entire tale of her woe to her parents, who arranged a Biradari Panchayat, but in vain. All the education qualification certificates are stated to be in possession of petitioner and she has refused to hand over the same to the complainant, despite repeated requests.

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail in the FIR, in all, according to the prosecution that petitioner and her other co-accused, have misappropriated the dowry articles, taunted, demanded a car, cash, gave beating and treated the complainant with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioner and her other co-accused, vide FIR No. 9 dated 19.2.2013 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 406 & 498-A by the police of Police Station NRI Hoshiarpur.

Having exercised her right of bail and remained unsuccessful before the Additional Sessions Judge, petitioner Nirmal Kaur wife of Parshotam Lal (mother-in-law) has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail in the indicated criminal case in this Court.

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, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.

Ex-facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner (mother-in-law), has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the complainant, so, she is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail, is neither tenable nor the observations of a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.) in bail matter in case Bhupinder Singh etc. Vs. State of Punjab, are at all applicable to the facts of this case, wherein the main accused husband was arrested, interrogated, recovery was effected and was released on regular bail. On the peculiar facts and in the special circumstances of that case, the anticipatory bail was granted to the parents-in-law. There can hardly be any dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but, to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in the present controversy, for the reasons mentioned here-in-below.

As is evident from the record that Mukesh Lal, husband of complainant, had already gone abroad after one month of the marriage leaving her (complainant) in lurch and she was residing with the petitioner (in-laws). Very serious and direct allegations of cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry are assigned to the petitioner in the FIR. She started giving taunts, beating and demanding a car from her. The mere fact that she is mother-in-law of complainant, ipso facto, is not a ground, much less cogent, to grant her the concession of anticipatory bail, particularly when the specific allegations are assigned to her in this relevant connection and Mukesh Lal, husband of complainant is still residing in abroad. The complainant was residing with the petitioner, who is directly responsible for cruelty to her.

There is yet another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed entirely from a different angle. During the course of preliminary hearing, it was contended on behalf of petitioner that "there is nothing serious between the parties and the present FIR seems to be the result of only a misunderstanding and there are bright chances of amicable settlement." Believing the contention as genuine, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.) issued notice of motion, by way of order dated 4.6.2013 (more than one year ago). Not only that, by virtue of order dated 13.6.2013, the interim bail was granted to enable the petitioner to join the investigation and to hand over the gold ornaments & education qualification certificates to the complainant. Even the matter was referred to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for amicable settlement, as prayed for, but the petitioner has failed to amicably settle the dispute and to return the indicated ornaments. She was again directed to join/cooperate with the investigation and to hand over the gold ornaments & education qualification certificates to the complainant, by means of order dated 28.11.2013.

Instead of reproducing each and every order, suffice it to say that petitioner has miserably failed to return the gold ornaments and education qualification certificates to complainant, despite repeated opportunities. In fact, she has flatly refused to hand over the indicated articles to her. Therefore, the petitioner has neither complied with the orders of this Court nor handed over the pointed articles to the complainant. The police has yet to interrogate her and to collect the evidence. To me, in case, she is allowed the benefit of pre-arrest bail, then, the police would be deprived to recover the dowry articles/gold ornaments, other case property and effective investigation. It would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution, which is not legally permissible.

Moreover, it is now well settled principle of law that the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest, recovery of case property from the main accused and investigation by the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an inroad into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. Sequelly, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby.

Thus, seen from any angle and taking into consideration the specific allegations of cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry assigned to the petitioner-mother-in-law, who is the main accused in the case, to my mind, she is not at all entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for pre-arrest bail filed by petitioner-mother-in-law is hereby dismissed as such.

Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on the merits of the main case, in any manner, during the trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail.