AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
14 paragraphs · 671 wordsR.L. Anand, J.
Having reasons to believe that they would be arrested, the present petitioners have filed the present application for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 129 dated 29.4.1997 under Sections 498A, 406, 506 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC Police Station Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
The allegations against the petitioners are that they had misappropriated the Istridhan of Anita Moudgil and that they had treated her with cruelty and had also intimidated her. This bail application earlier came up for hearing before his Lordship Hon''ble Mr. Justice S.S. Sudhalkar, who was pleased to pass the following orders :
"Notice to AG Haryana for 28.8.1997.
In the meanwhile, it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioners in connection with FIR No. 129, dated 29.4.1997, registered at Police Station Charkhi Dadri, for the offences under sections 498A/406, 506, 120B/34 of the IPC, they be released on bail by the police on their furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/ each with one surety each in the like amount.
It would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for police remand if he considers it proper and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits.
If the petitioners go out from the place of their residence for more than two days, they shall inform the Police Station in advance in writing regarding the same.
Dasti.
31.7.97.
Sd/
S.S. Sudhalkar, Judge"
The bail application has been opposed by the State represented by S.S. Pattar, AAG, Haryana, assisted by Mr. S.D. Bansal, Advocate.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that keeping in view the conduct of the petitioners they are not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail irrespective of the fact that the order dated 31.7.1997 has been passed by this Court. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioners, in fact, had duped the complainant Anita. Earlier a case was registered against the petitioners under sections 498A read with 506 IPC. Under a promise given by the petitioners the complainant and her witnesses did not support the allegations of that case FIR No. 111 dated 16.4.93. The petitioners were acquitted and after acquittal they have duped the complainant of her valuable belongings and gold ornaments.
On the contrary it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had never converted to their own use the Istridhan of the complainant and they are still ready to hand over all articles which are enumerated in Annexure P.8 which is in the hand of complainant. No useful purpose is likely to serve to send the petitioners inside the jail. More so, when the discretion has already gone in favour of the petitioners and no strong or exceptional grounds have been shown to withdraw that concession. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 31.7.1997 should be confirmed. Directions are given to the Investigating Officer to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest. To safeguard the interest of the complainant, directions are given to the petitioners to join the investigation as and when called by the investigating officer. They shall not leave the country without prior permission of the CJM concerned. They shall also not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly and they shall surrender their passports, if any, before the investigating officer. Directors are further given to the petitioners to produce all the articles mentioned in Annexure P.8 before the investigating officer who after taking the same in possession, shall hand over to the complainant against receipt. With regard to other articles, which may be in possession of the petitioners, the investigating officer would be free to interrogate the petitioners. However, the lady petitioner No. 2 namely Shakuntala shall be interrogated only in the presence of a lady constable and her interrogation will not continue after sun set. This Crl. Misc. stands allowed.
