Vinod Kumar vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.—On the complaint of Sangeeta wife of the petitioner-Vinod Kumar, the FIR in question had been registered on 26.7.1999 under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant has alleged that she married the petitioner on 13.12.1998 and after few days the petitioner Vinod Kumar, her father-in-law and mother-in-law starting taunting her for bringing less dowry and on many occasions the petitioner beat her. She has also alleged that all the accused taunted her physically and mentally. According to the complainant on 18.3.1999, the accused gave her lot of beatings and tried to kill her. She has alleged that she was turned out of her house and that the accused have retained her dowry articles. It is further alleged by her that she was even threatned on telephone and that whenever she travels alone to Hisar, where she works, the accused in the company of bad elements follow her.

The petitioner''s applications for bail in anticipation of arrest was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, and, therefore, this petition u/s 438, Cr. P.C. for bail.

I have heard the Counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations regarding cruelty are general and vague except the allegation that on 1and 3. 1999 the accused gave her beatings and tried to kill her and that they turned her out of her house. He contends that though it is stated that this incident took place on 18.3.1999 the F.I.R. has been lodged only after four months i.e. on 26.7.1999, which according to him, shows the false nature of the complaint. He also contends that the allegation that the accused threatened her over phone, and follow her whenever she goes to Hisar are also general and vague. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also contends that without any specific plea regarding entrustment, it has been vaguely alleged that the accused have kept all her dowry articles in their possession.

Pointing out these circumstances, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that the dowry articles have been recovered and are lying in the Police Malkhana and that the complainant has also made an application for getting them back.

Taking into consideration the arguments put forward, but at the same time without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

In the event of arrest of the petitioner on the allegations found in the F.I.R. mentioned in this petition, the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

If the petitioner''s presence is necessary for the purpose of investigation, the investigating officer shall issue notice giving sufficient time to the petitioner to join investigation. On such notice, the petitioner shall join investigation and also abide by the provisions of Section 438(2), Cr. P.C.