Rupesh vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—As the identical points for consideration to grant the concession of anticipatory bail or otherwise to petitioners Rupesh wife of Rajesh Goswami (mother-in-law) and Rajesh Goswami son of D.S. Goswami (father-in-law) of complainant Preeti Goswami, are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated petitions i.e. (CRM No. M-43678 of 2013) (for brevity "the 1st petition") and CRM No. M-1512 of 2014) (for short "2nd petition"), arising out of the same case/FIR, vide this common order to avoid the repetition of facts.

The petitioners have preferred the instant separate petitions for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr. PC, in a case registered against them along with their son and main co-accused Puneet Goswami (husband), by means of FIR No. 439 dated 21.11.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 406, 506 and 498-A read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Shivaji Colony, Rohtak.

Notices of the petitions were 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, the present petitions for anticipatory bail deserve to be accepted in this context.

What cannot possibly be disputed here is that petitioners are parents-in-law of the complainant. All the main allegations of cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry are assigned to main accused Puneet Goswami (husband) (non-petitioner), who was arrested, interrogated and was allowed regular bail by the trial Court. Very vague and general allegations in this respect were assigned to the petitioners.

Moreover, the interim bail was granted to enable the petitioners to join the investigation by Coordinate Benches of this Court (Amol Rattan Singh, J.), by way of order dated 20.12.2013 in first petition and (Mahavir S. Chauhan, J.), by virtue of order dated 21.1.2014 in second petition.

At the very outset, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Kishan Kumar, has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and stated that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. All the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan), so, the final conclusion of the trial will naturally take a long time.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of the facts & circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-before and without commenting further anything on merits lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, the instant petitions are hereby accepted and the indicated interim bail already granted to the petitioners, vide orders dated 20.12.2013 (in 1st petition) and 21.1.2014 (in 2nd petition) is hereby made absolute, subject to compliance of conditions as envisaged u/s 438(2) Cr. PC.

Needless to mention that nothing observed here-in-above would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the present petitions for anticipatory bail only. At the same time, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant behalf.