Sarla vs State of Haryana

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 108 dated 29.4.2010 under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station SGM Nagar, Faridabad.

The contents of the FIR, as reproduced in para 1 of the petition, read as under:

Statement of Laiman son of late Sh. Nathi Ram Caste Jatab, resident of H. No. 331 Ward No. 10, Bhim Basti, Old Faridabad, P.S. Old Faridabad aged about 53 years, stated that I am a resident of aforesaid address and am matric pass. I am employed as Tracer in Irrigation Department, Sector 16-A, Nehar Colony. I have one son and three daughters, Amongst my four children, Santosh @ Savita is at No. 3 whose marriage I solemnized on dated 26.2.2009 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies with Raj Kumar son of late Attar Singh Caste Jatab, r/o H. No. J-98, Adarsh Colony, SGM Nagar, Faridabad and whereas I gave dowry in the marriage beyond my status. This marriage was performed through mediator namely Laxmi Narayan son of Tunda Ram r/o H. No. F-50, SGM Nagar, Faridabad. But my Samdhan (mother-in-law of my daughter) and my son-in-law were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and Jethani Sarla, Jeth Vikay son of Attar Singh and Dewar Sonu and Niece Manisha daughter of Vijay of my daughter Santosh @ Savita were also harassing my daughter Santosh @ Savita for brining less dowry and were saying that we demanded car but your father by giving motorcycle befooled us and demand of Rs. 50,000/-was also raised. These all talks were told by my daughter Santosh @ Savita by coming to my house. Whereas this fact was told by Santosh @ Savita, my son Laxman was also present. My son after going to in-laws of my daughter tried to make understand to his Mausi Santosh and brother-in-law Raj Kumar and Jethani of girl namely Sarla and Vijay husband of Sarla and Dewar Sonu and niece Manish and said that we have given dowry in the marriage of sister beyond our status, but they do not desist from their habits and my sister Santosh @ Savita again after coming to the house told that these all aforesaid persons are harassing for bringing less dowry in the marriage and the aforesaid persons also gave threat of life to my sister. Whereas these all facts were told by us to the mediator of marriage Laxmi Narayan. He also after going to the house of boy tried to make boy, mother of the boy, Jeth, Jethani and Dewar understand but they did not desist from their habits, whereas today due to lust of dowry, these aforesaid accused have killed by daughter by giving poison. Whereas in the morning at about 8.40 a.m. on the mobile phone No. 9999026852 of my younger brother Tej Singh @ Pappu my daughter Santosh @ Savita from her mobile No. 9211293722 had talked that uncle these aforesaid persons due to dowry have given me poison forcibly. These talks of mobile were told to me by my brother Tej Singh and we while searching our daughter reached to our daughter at Escort Hospital. The daughter after seeing both of us told to my brother Tej Singh that uncle save me, these persons have given poison to me forcibly. Strict to strict action be taken against these persons. I have got recorded my statement, which has been heard and is correct.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case due to her relationship with the husband of the deceased. The petitioner is wife of the elder brother of husband of the deceased. The husband and mother-in-law of the deceased are in judicial custody.

After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.

The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with Raj Kumar on 26.2.2009, whereas, she had died due to poisoning on 29.4.2010. There are allegations against the petitioner as well as other family members of the husband of the deceased qua the harassment meted out to the deceased on account of insufficient dowry. A demand of Rs. 50,000/- was also raised. During investigation, the husband of the petitioner has been found innocent. Manisha, daughter of the petitioner has also been declared innocent.

Keeping in view the seriousness of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. The petitioner might be required for custodial interrogation.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.