Nisha Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No. 165/2020, dated 30.10.2020, registered under Section

306 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Nadaun, District Hamirpur.

Aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged on 30.10.2020 by Shri Jamna Dass, father of deceased Shri Jeevan Kumar. The

complainant submitted therein that his son Jeevan Kumar had married the bail petitioner in 2006. The couple was blessed with a son in April 2007.

Soon thereafter marital discord developed between them. Subsequently, the couple along with their minor son started residing in the paternal home of

the petitioner in District Una. In February 2018, the complainant was informed by his son-Shri Jeevan Kumar that the petitioner was not letting him

meet his son. On 24.10.2020, Jeevan Kumar statedly telephonically intimated his father/complainant about receipt of a summon from the court at Una

regarding a case fixed on 29.10.2020. This litigation was instituted by the petitioner against Shri Jeevan Kumar. The complainant further submitted that

his son Jeevan Kumar after obtaining leave from his private job at Ludhiana came to his home in district Hamirpur on 27.10.2020. The complainant

alongwith Jeevan Kumar remained present in Una court for attending the hearing on 29.10.2020. The complainant asserted that Jeevan Kumar was

mentally disturbed because of false accusations levelled against him by his wife/petitioner. After attending the court hearing on 29.10.2020 at Una, the

complainant along with his son Jeevan Kumar returned to their home in village Bhadera, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur and had meals. The next

day on 30.10.2020, at around 7:45 A.M., mother of Jeevan Kumar called him out. Hearing no response, she pushed open the door to his room and saw

his dead body hanging from noose. On the basis of above complaint, instant FIR was registered.

Interim protection was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 30.10.2020, pursuant to which, as per status report the petitioner has joined the

investigation.

According to the status report, during investigation, the petitioner disclosed that her husband late Shri Jeevan Kumar did not enjoy cordial relations with

his parents. She cited some specific incidents of disputes between Jeevan Kumar and his father Shri Jamna Dass/the complainant. As per the status

report, the petitioner further disclosed that she along with her husband and their son Ankush had left for her paternal home in Una in the year 2010.

Petitioner’s father Shri Jagjeewan Lal was instrumental in providing employment to her husband in Ludhiana. Her husband used to come to his in-

laws’ place intermittently and also provided for the expenses of his wife and son. However, w.e.f. October 2019 Jeevan Kumar neither visited his

wife/petitioner nor provided her any money for meeting day-to-day expenses. This prompted the petitioner to institute a complaint on 21.3.2020 before

the Superintendent of Police, Una. Her complaint was forwarded to Women Police Station, Una. Despite directions, Jeevan Kumar did not join the

investigation there. Resultantly, the complaint was forwarded to Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Bangana on 5.6.2020 for further

necessary action. Jeevan Kumar chose not to attend the proceedings even before the CDPO, Bangana. This led to forwarding of her complaint to the

Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, which sent the summon to Jeevan Kumar for remaining present in Court on 29.10.2020.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged against her. The petitioner had only instituted the

proceedings for claiming the maintenance amount for herself and her minor son. He further submitted that the petitioner has undertaken to abide by all

the conditions, which may be imposed upon her in case of confirmation of interim protection granted to her vide order dated 30.10.2020.

Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in case the Court is inclined to confirm the interim protection to the petitioner, then the same be

made subject to her joining and co-operating with the investigating agency as and when directed.

The status report reflects that the petitioner had married Jeevan Kumar on 12.5.2006. The couple was blessed with a son on 18.4.2007. Jeevan

Kumar had left his parental home in 2010 to join his wife and minor son in his wife’s parental home in district Una. He was doing a private job at

Ludhiana and for that purpose was residing at Ludhiana. As per the status report, since he had stopped visiting his wife and son in district Una and

had also stopped maintaining them, therefore, the petitioner had lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Una. The cognizance of the

complaint was taken by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una and summons were issued to Jeevan Kumar for 29.10.2020. Looking into

the investigation carried out by the investigating agency and the nature of accusations levelled against the petitioner, at this stage it cannot be said that

the petitioner was guilty of the offence alleged against her This is something which has to be proved during trial. Petitioner had been residing at Village

Bhaleti, Tehsil Bangana, District Una alongwith couple’s minor son, presently aged 13 years whereas her husband resided at Ludhiana. Petitioner

has joined the investigation pursuant to the interim protection and is co-operating with the investigating agency. Petitioner is a local resident with no

criminal history. Considering the investigation carried out so far and the facts, as have come out in the status report, I am inclined to confirm the

interim protection granted to the petitioner vide order dated 30.10.2020. Accordingly, this bail petition is allowed and order dated 30.10.2020 is

confirmed subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall continue to join the investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law and

shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency. However, whenever the investigation takes place within the boundaries of the Police Station or Police

Post, then the petitioner shall not be called before 9:00 a.m. and shall be let off before 5:00 p.m.

 (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever:

(iii) The petitioner shall not contact the complainant, threaten or browbeat him or to use any pressure tactics in any manner whatsoever.

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

(v) In case of launching of prosecution, petitioner shall attend the trial on every hearing, unless exempted in accordance with law.

(vi) The petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with

the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer;

(vii) The petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station about her place of residence during bail and trial. Any

change in the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioners shall furnish furnish details of their Aadhar Card, Telephone

Number, E-mail, PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any.

In case of violation of any of the terms & conditions of the bail, respondent-State shall be at liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of

the bail. It is made clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of adjudication of instant bail petition and shall not be construed as an

opinion on the merits of the matter.

With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.