Santosh vs State of Haryana

K. S. Kumaran, J.

F.I.R. No. 1025 dated 2.7.1997 under Sections 498A, 376, 406 and 34 I.P.C. has been registered at Police Station Sadar, Gurgaon on the statement of Rakesh Kumar wherein the following among other allegations are found :

The marriage of complainant''s sister Surekha was performed by his father on 10.3.1997 with Sukhbir, and dowry articles were given according to his capacity. When Surekha went to her marital home, Santosh (petitioner herein) wife of Ranbir (brother of Sukhbir) started taunting Surekha again and again that she has been given less dowry and it will not be possible for her to pull on in the house. Ranbir and Santosh started quarrelling with Surekha to bring a car or else to go away from the house. When Surekha informed about this to Sukhbir, Sukhbir beat her and asked her to bring a Maruti car, stating that he will not otherwise keep her.

On one night, when Sukhbir was on duty, Ranbir came to the room of Surekha, and the room was closed from outside by Santosh. In the morning, Surekha narrated this to Sukhbir and stated that rape had been committed on her. Santosh and Ranbir beat Surekha and directed her not to disclose this thing to anyone. On 25.6.1997, the complainant went and took her along with him to his house where Surekha disclosed all these matters.

Petitioner Santosh approached the Sessions Court, Gurgaon for bail in anticipation of arrest, but her request for bail was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the same relief.

Notice was given to A.G. Haryana and the arrest of the petitioner was stayed. On 14.7.1999, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that despite repeated requests of the petitioner, she was not associated with the investigation by two Assistant SubInspectors. He also stated that even two written applications were given, but yet they insisted for the production of the stay order from the Court. Learned counsel for the State reported that neither of the Assistant SubInspectors mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner, nor the S.H.O. concerned had come to instruct him. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 28.7.1999 directing that the A.S.I. and the S.H.O. should appear in Court. When the case was taken up on 30.7.1999, none had appeared on behalf of the State of Haryana.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the records on file.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends as follows :

It is clear, that no specific allegation regarding the entrustment of any articles has been made against the petitioner. The petitioner is the brother''s wife of Surekha''s husband. The allegations against the petitioner are general and vague, without any details as to the date. It has been vaguely alleged that the petitioner and her husband taunted her for less dowry, and that the petitioner along with others insisted that Surekha should bring a car. Though it is alleged that on one night, petitioner''s husband entered the room of Surekha, that the petitioner closed the door from outside and that the petitioner''s husband committed rape on Surekha, no date of this alleged occurrence has been given. No complaint has also been given with regard to this incident. The present F.I.R. itself has been lodged on 2.7.1997, that the matter was compromised and that Surekha lived with her husband till 6.8.1998. Thereafter she did not return to her matrimonial home and, therefore, a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights has also been filed.

In these circumstances, taking into consideration the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but at the same time, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

Ultimately, this petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner on the allegations found in the F.I.R. mentioned in this petition, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, However, if the petitioner is needed for the purpose of investigation, the Investigating Officer shall issue notice giving sufficient time to the petitioner to join investigation and on such notice, she shall join investigation. The petitioner shall also abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.