Papu alias Mona vs State of H.P.

Kuldip Singh, Judge

This judgment shall dispose of Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 973 and 974 of 2011. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 973 of 2011 has been filed by petitioner Papu alias Mona and Cr.M.P.(M) No. 974 of 2011 by petitioner Surjeet Kumar alias Chota u/s 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing them on bail in FIR No.148/2011 dated 13.09.2011, registered at Police Station, Jawalamukhi, under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC.

It has been stated that FIR No. 148 dated 13.09.2011 has been registered at Police Station, Jawalamukhi, under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC on the complaint of Balak Ram stating therein that complainant had married his daughter with Rajiv Kumar, brother of petitioners, on 13.02.2009, for few months they had cordial relations, but after that her husband Rajiv Kumar, petitioners, father-in-law Karam Chand, sisters-in-law Ramana,Ranjana alias Kalu and Monika started torturing the daughter of complainant on demand of dowry. The complainant told the father of the petitioners and other accused that only two years were left for his retirement and on his retirement he would fulfill their demands of dowry.

On 13.09.2011, the complainant left his daughter in her matrimonial home in the morning, but in the night at 10.15 p.m., he received a telephonic call from the house of petitioners and he was informed that his daughter was not well, she had been taken to Naudan hospital. The complainant visited Naudan hospital but he did not find his daughter in the hospital. The complainant then went to Jawalaji hospital where he found his daughter dead. On these allegations, the police registered a case at Police Station,Jawalaji against the petitioners and other co-accused. The petitioners have been arrested.

The petitioners moved bail applications u/s 439 Cr.P.C. which have been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Dharamshala, on 04.11.2011 on the ground that allegations against the petitioners are serious. It has been stated that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. The father of the deceased had not made any complaint earlier in the Police Station or with the Panchayat. Monu daughter of the complainant was in family way, on 05.09.2011 she was got medically checked up. According to doctor, the foetus was not showing any heart beat, some medicines were prescribed by the doctor to the deceased.

The petitioners have nothing to do with the death of the deceased Monu. The petitioners are innocent. The investigation in the case is complete. The petitioners are ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The women accused have been granted bail by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra, at Dharamshala. Karam Chand accused has been granted bail by this Court on 23.11.2011 in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 941 of 2011. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioners on bail.

The status report has been filed in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 973 of 2011. It has been stated that case has been registered on the basis of written complaint of Balak Ram, father of deceased, who came to the Police Station on 13.09.2011. It has been stated that marriage of Monu and Rajiv Kumar was solemnized on 26.01.2009. In the beginning, there was no problem, but after 5-6 months, Rajiv Kumar, petitioners, Karam Chand, Ramana, Ranjana alias Kalu, Monika started troubling Monu for brining more dowry which was told by Monu to the complainant, who told Rajiv that he would fulfill their demands as he has left only two years of his retirement.

On 12.09.2011, complainant and his wife Kamlesh went to the matrimonial home of Monu, the Panchayat asked Rajiv and at that time Rajiv, petitioners, Karam Chand and Monu had some altercation. On this, Panchayat was adjourned for 13.09.2011. At about 10.15 p.m., the complainant was informed by the in-laws of Monu that Monu was not feeling well. The complainant went to the matrimonial home of Monu, but Monu was not there. Karam Chand told that Monu had been taken to Naudan hospital. The complainant reached Naudan hospital, but Monu was not there. The complainant went to Jawalaji hospital and found Monu lying dead. On the statement of complainant, the case was registered.

It has been stated that on search no poisonous substance or suicide note was recovered. The petitioners were arrested on 13.09.2011. Ramana and Ranjana were arrested on 17.09.2011. It has come in the investigation that Monu or his parents earlier never reported to Panchayat or police regarding the behaviour, conduct of accused towards Monu. Monu was pregnant, she was medically checked up in a private hospital at Jawalamukhi on 05.09.2011. Doctor Rajiv Kundu stated that there was no heart beat in the foetus of Monu, she was prescribed some medicines and she took five tablets in one-go. In the report of viscera and clothes of the deceased, phosphine gas was detected on some exhibits. No other poison was detected. The doctor has given final opinion that deceased died due to poison i.e. phosphine gas. The challan has been submitted on 09.11.2011 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, II, Dehra. The case has been committed to Sessions Judge Court, Dharamshala. It has been stated that petitioners are clever, they can influence the witnesses and, therefore, they may not be released on bail.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the police file. It has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the petitioners that Karam Chand accused has already been released on bail by this Court on 23.11.2011 in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 941 of 2011. It has been submitted that for purpose of bail the case of the petitioners is identical to Karam Chand, therefore, on the principle of parity, petitioners are also entitled to bail. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application and has submitted that petitioners have committed serious offence and, therefore, they are not entitled to indulgence of bail.

The various aspects of the case have been considered in the judgment dated 23.11.2011 in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 941 of 2011. The allegations against the petitioners are not different from the allegations against Karam Chand. In the order dated 23.11.2011, Panchayat meeting dated 12.09.2011 has also been noticed. There is no specific demand of dowry or specific allegations of torture of deceased against the petitioners. The apprehension of the Investigating Agency that petitioners may influence prosecution witnesses has not been supported by corroborative material. In any case in such situation law will take its own course.

In view of order dated 23.11.2011 in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 941 of 2011 and other material on record, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, both Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 973 and 974 of 2011 are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in FIR No.148/2011 dated 13.09.2011, registered at Police Station, Jawalamukhi, under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC, on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.II,at Dehra with the condition that the petitioners shall not terrorize or overawe the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail applications and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.