Premwati vs State of Haryana

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is Criminal Misc. Petition No. 23392M of 1998 whereby Smt. Premwati and her husband Shri Chand have prayed for the grant of bail to them in case FIR No. 200 dated 30.5.1998 under Section 304B/201 IPC of PS Sadar, Palwal.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that Madan Lal son of Kanwal Pal had married his daughter Pushpa on 20.5.1995 to Ramesh son of Shri Chand, resident of Katesra. His soninlaw Ramesh died two months after the marriage in a road accident. After his death, Pushpa was married to Suresh, the younger brother of Ramesh in the year 1996 and Madan Lal gave him dowry according to his financial capacity. According to the prosecution, Suresh, his father Shri Chand, mother Premwati and sister Om Wati were not satisfied with the dowry brought by Smt. Pushpa in her marriage to Suresh. Pushpa came to her parental home and told her mother and brother that her inlaws were harassing her saying that the dowry brought by her was inadequate. Madan Lal counselled his daughter and sent her to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, Shri Chand and Suresh stopped visiting the parental home of Smt. Pushpa and they continued harassing Smt. Pushpa saying that the dowry brought by her was inadequate. On 28.5.98 Pushpa''s brother Rakesh went to Pushpa''s matrimonial home where Shri Chand, Suresh, Premwati and Om Wati were found present. They refused to send Pushpa with Rakesh saying that they were not in a position to give anything in dowry. Pushpa told Rakesh that she was being harassed by her inlaws on account of dowry repeatedly. Rakesh gave a gold ring to Pushpa and returned to his village Misa. On 30.5.1998 Madan Lal received information that Shri Chand, Premwati, Suresh and Om Wati had killed Pushpa on account of their greed for dowry, having remained unsatiated. Madan Lal alongwith Rakesh, brother Sham Lal and some other people of his village Misa reached the village Katesra, that is the village of Suresh where they saw that they had killed Pushpa and cremated her. When they tried to confront them about the cause of death, they gave them no satisfactory reply.

In has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it was Pushpa''s second marriage and Suresh''s first marriage and if the intention had been to command dowry, they would not have accepted Pushpa in second marriage to Suresh. They would have rather married Suresh elsewhere and commanded dowry. It was stated that they were not after dowry. They accepted Pushpa after the tragic death of their son Rakesh. It was further submitted that Pushpa had died a natural death and information was sent to her parents and she was cremated in the presence of the whole village. It was also submitted that there in no medical evidence to show that Pushpa''s was an unnatural death. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that there is not direct circumstantial evidence to know that Pushpa''s was an unnatural death and further allegations that they were not satisfied with the dowry are vague. It was further submitted that coaccused Om Wati was allowed bail by Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad and the case of the petitioners is not distinguishable from that of Om Wati.

Pushpa was married to Suresh in November 1996. Her death took place in May 1998 i.e. within a period of one and a half years of her marriage. Learned AAG for the State of Haryana submitted that Ramesh was serving in the Delhi Police as a constable. Pushpa was next of kin of Ramesh. She would have been given compassionate appointment in place of Ramesh and there was a call from Delhi Police to Pushpa for giving appointment to her as constable. Feeling that every benefit in the wake of death of Ramesh would be given to Smt. Pushpa, they married Pushpa to Suresh so that Suresh was able to get compassionate appointment and other benefits accruing to her on the death of Ramesh, which will also remain in the family. It was submitted that Madan Lal was not willing to marry Pushpa to Suresh and it was on account of their pressure that he married her to Suresh. Suresh requested to Delhi Police for compassionate appointment in place of Pushpa in lieu of death of Ramesh and he was taken in Delhi Police. All the benefits which had otherwise accrued to Pushpa were grabbed by Suresh.

The question that arises is why Pushpa died within 11/2 years of her marriage ? Her death took place in the house of her inlaws and, therefore, her inlaws are in a better position to explain the cause of her death. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Suresh was given appointment in his own right in Delhi Police and it was not a compassionate appointment.

Keeping in view that Smt. Premwati is a woman and the allegations respecting the demand of dowry are general, I feel bail should be allowed to Smt. Premwati. So, bail to her to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad.

Now bail to Shri Chand. Shri Chand, petitioner No. 2 may apply for bail after the statements of Madan Lal etc. are recorded, who are alleged to depose to cruelty to which Smt. Pushpa was being subjected by the accused on account of Pushpa''s and her parents'' inability to fulfil their alleged greed for dowry and if Shri Chand makes such an application, the learned trial court will decide that application on merits.