JUDGMENT 1. - This order would decide S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 2003/91, filed by Kalicharan, Smt. Ratnidevi, and Nand lal. 2. The facts in brief, are that Gokulchand Kanodia, presented a report before the Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu, stating that 5th Nov., 88, he had lodged a report at PS-Navalgarh, regarding ousting of his daughter, Satyabhama, from her in-laws' house, after beating her and imparting cruel behaviour and also regarding forcibly retaining her clothes and ornaments. (Stridhan). It was mentioned that on 6th Nov., 1988, the SHO, PSN avalgarh, had gone to the spot, but, the accused persons did not allow his daughter to stay in their house, and also did not return her goods, ornaments & cash. The complainant had brought his daughter Satyabhama back on 6th Nov. 88 (i.e. 3 days before the Deepavali'), with the assistance of respectable persons. It was mentioned that on account cruel treatment and beating given to his daughter Satyabhama, her physical condition had deteriorated, and he was getting her medical treatment from a doctor at Jhunjhunu, and that her condition was still not well. Amongst the accused who had cruelly treated his daughter. Gokulchand Kanodia mentioned the names of Kalicharan; Smt. Ratnidevi wife of Kalicharan; Nandlal; Girdhari; Sanvarmal & Santosh, sons of Kalicharan; Madanlal Nangliya; Pavankumar and Ramesh Kumar, son of Kalicharan (husband of Satyabhama). 3. The SP, Jhunjhunu, endorsed this report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Navalgarh, for urgent investigtion and necessary legal proceedings. Upon this report, Crime Case No. 3/89, for offence under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, was registered at PS-Navalgarh, on 3rd Jan., 1989, The police recorded statement of Gokulchand Kanodia under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, on 3rd Jan., 1989, wherein, it was stated that the marriage of Satyabhama had taken place 10 years before, recording of the statement, with Ramesh, son of Kalicharan. Before her marriage, Satyabhama was quite sane. However, for the last three years, the accused had been behaving with his daughter cruelly and had beaten her. They also did not allow his daughter to take the dowry articles which had been given by him. His daughter was kept in a 'Kothri' in the 'Nohra'. On 6th Nov., 1988 he brought his daughter to Dundlod, and her brain had been affected. He did not know what "thing" her in-laws had given her to eat. They also did not allow his daughter to take the dowry articles which had been given by him. His daughter was kept in a 'Kothri' in the 'Nohra'. On 6th Nov., 1988 he brought his daughter to Dundlod, and her brain had been affected. He did not know what "thing" her in-laws had given her to eat. He also stated in his police-statement that no demand for dowry was made from him by the in-laws of his daughter. The in-laws of his daughter wished that somehow Satyabhama should die, so that, re-marriage of Ramesh might be performed. 4. Statement of another witness, Nathmal, was recorded on 7th Jan.'89, Satyabhama is sister's daughter of Nathmal. He stated before the police that for the last three years, the in-laws of Satyabhama were treating her cruelly. He had gone to Mukundgarh twice or thrice and Satyabhama had told him that her in-laws and her husband's elder brother used to harass her. Ramesh, who was husband of Satyabhama, lived at Delhi. Ramesh had taken Satyabhama to Delhi for some time. However, soon thereafter, Nandlal (elder brother of Ramesh) had taken Satyabhama to Kanpur, and she was harassed and beaten at Kanpur. Rangwati, wife of Gokulchand, was examined on 7th Jan.,'89. She stated that the mind of Satyabhama had been affected, and she was not allowed to bring her dowry-articles back with her. There is also statement of Satyabhama herself, recorded by the police on 7th Jan., 1989 wherein it is mentioned that the husband of Satyabhama had kept her at Delhi. Her husband did not give her any trouble. Her husband's brother Pavankumar had taken her to Kanpur, and there, he used to scold her. She also stated that her father had given sufficient dowry. However, she was being harassed for the last three years. Her dowry-articles were kept in a separate room and she was not permitted to bring them. She also stated that her in-laws or her husband's brother had not made any demand for dowry. It was further stated that her husband had performed a second marriage. On 22nd Feb., 1989, Dr. Gyan Prakash Pilania, Director General of Police, Rajasthan, wrote to Ramjilal Sharma that the accused persons had not so far been arrested and progress had not been made in the investigation. It was further stated that her husband had performed a second marriage. On 22nd Feb., 1989, Dr. Gyan Prakash Pilania, Director General of Police, Rajasthan, wrote to Ramjilal Sharma that the accused persons had not so far been arrested and progress had not been made in the investigation. Ramjilal Sharma was directed to himself investigate the case, and on establishment of guilt, the accused persons were directed to be arrested and challaned. 5. Statement of some more witnesses were also recorded. 6. The version of Ramesh (husband of Satyabhama) as recorded in the case-diary is that he was married to Satyabhama in the year 1978. He was in service at Delhi. During his stay at Delhi, Satyabhama became ill several times. She had not delivered any child, and repeated abortions had taken place; and on account of that, she had suffered from paralysis. He got medical-treatment of Satyabhama according to his capacity in different hospitals, including the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi. There were six abortions to Satyabhama during the period 1979 to 1988. She had lost her mental balance. In the case-diary, there are various prescriptions, which go to show, that on several occasions, Satyabhama was shown in the AIIMS, in the years 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987 and in 1988. Various investigations were also carried out. In one of the prescriptions dated 22nd Oct. 84, there is a reference of recurrent abortions, numbering six. She was also referred to for physiotherapy on account of the defect in her right hand and in speech. One of the prescriptions dated 3rd July, 88 goes to show that she was asked to write ten sentences. These prescriptions go to show that right from the year 1981 till 1988, she was not in good health, and was being shown in various hospitals. 7. It appears that a Final Report was prepared by Shri Ganpat Raj Mathur, S.P., Jhunjhunu, on 30th April, 89, and was submitted to the Court of ACJM, Jhunjhunu. However, the Final Report was sent back by the ACJM with the direction that the case be investigated relating of offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code and the result with regard to recovery of 'Stridhan' be sent. However, the Final Report was sent back by the ACJM with the direction that the case be investigated relating of offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code and the result with regard to recovery of 'Stridhan' be sent. After return of the Final-Report, statement of Gokulchand Kanodia was recorded on 11th Jan., 90, Gokulchand Kanodia inter alia stated in his statement that one gold-locket & one gold ring were given to Satyabhama from the side of the boy. One gold-Tika and one 'Chhap' having the name of Ramesh were also given to Satyabhama. On 11th Jan., 90, Gokulchand Kanodia presented before the D.S.P., Jhunjhunu, a listof dowry-articles. It mentioned various articles, including the ornaments given to Satyabhama by Gokulchand Kanodia; and also contained a list of clothes and ornaments given from the boy's side. 8. Ramesh (husband of Satyabhama) was arrested on 27th Jan., 1991. Ramesh was interrogated on 1st Feb., 91; and it is recorded in the case-diary that a list of articles which had been given to him by his father-in-law Gokulchand Kanodia, was lying in a brief-case at his house at Delhi. He also stated that some gold ornaments weigh in 10 Tolas, a 'Nath' and silver utensils were with his brother Nand Lal, at Kanpur, and that the same could be got recovered by him. 9. It seems that a "list" of some articles, which is at page No. 184 of the case-diary, was recovered at the instance of Ramesh, from his house. This "list" refers to two 'Patlas' one locket, one 'Chhap', two earnings diamond 'Nash' some utensils of silver and some more articles. However, these articles could not be recovered from the house of Ramesh. It is also mentioned in the case-diary that the parents of Ramesh and Nandlal were absconding out of fear. It seems that Gulzari, Sanvarmal, Santosh Madan Lal and Pavan Kumar had applied for pre-arrest bail before the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. The Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, by his order dated 8th March, 91, ordered for pre-arrest bail of Nadanlal. Gulzari, Sanvarmal, Santosh and Pavankumar the applied for pre-arrest bail before this Court; and by order of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 28th May, 91, they were ordered to be released on pre-arrest bail, thereafter, the present petitioners Kalicharan, Smt. Ratnidevi and Nandlal applied for pre-arrest bail before this Court on 26th June, 91. Gulzari, Sanvarmal, Santosh and Pavankumar the applied for pre-arrest bail before this Court; and by order of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 28th May, 91, they were ordered to be released on pre-arrest bail, thereafter, the present petitioners Kalicharan, Smt. Ratnidevi and Nandlal applied for pre-arrest bail before this Court on 26th June, 91. Kalicharan is the father of Ramesh, while Smt. Ratnidevi is his mother, Nandlal is elder brother of Ramesh. 10. It would appear from the narration of the above facts that so far as offence under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, was concerned, the police had submitted a Final Report. However, the ACJM, Jhunjhunu, directed investigation for the offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code. 11. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumari and Another ( AIR 1985 SC 628 ) , it was held by the majority that husband and in-laws are trustees of a 'Stridhan' and they are bound to return the same if and when demanded by a married woman. Where allegations of grabbing and misappropriation of 'Stridhan' were made out of married woman, in her complaint, and the allegations were clear, specific and unambiguous, and all the facts stated in the complaint constituted offence under Section 405/406, Indian Penal Code, the right to prove the case cannot be denied to the complainant. In the above case, the complaint filed by the married woman was quashed. The Supreme Court held that the complaint prima facie disclosed an offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 405/ 406, Indian Penal Code, and the High Court was not justified in quashing the complaint. 12. In the instant case, it is clear that Satyabhama was not keeping good health for the last so many years. At present, she is living with her father. in view of the circumstances of the case the complainant was required to file a list of 'Stridhan' articles, claimed in the case, alongwith an affidavit, as to what articles had so far been returned to the complainant. The petitioners were also required to file an affidavit about the articles returned to the complainant so far. Complainant Gokulchand Kanodia filed an affidavit, wherein, he stated that in another bail application filed by Gulzari and three others he was present in Court on 4th April, 91. The petitioners were also required to file an affidavit about the articles returned to the complainant so far. Complainant Gokulchand Kanodia filed an affidavit, wherein, he stated that in another bail application filed by Gulzari and three others he was present in Court on 4th April, 91. When he returned to his native place Dundlod on 7th April, 91, he had come to know that some articles had been left at his place by Santosh son of Kalicharan. The articles left at his residence were to iron-boxes; thirty old sarees; two suit-cases; ten blouses; one chunri; one double-bed; one almirah; one sewing-machine; two Patlas (one pair); one pair of earings; one locket; one chhap; one pair of Punjab of silver; and one ladies' wrist watch. He mentioned that except the above articles no other articles of Satyabhama as regards her 'Stridhan' had been returned by the petitioners. 13. The petitioners in their application, have stated that Ramesh was married on 10th May 78. Ramesh was employed at Delhi, with some private concern, since before his marriage, and therefore, Satyabhama lived with him all alone. Satyabhama became pregnant in the year 1979. Ramesh took all precautions and got her checked up by specialist/ doctors: and Satyabhama remained under medicaltreatment from 20th August, 79 to 3rd October, 85. For her pregnancy, she had undergone medical treatment at Sir Gangaram Hospital, New Delhi; AIIMS, New Delhi; Ultra Sound Laboratories, New Delhi; Medical Investigation Centre, New Delhi; Kanodiya Sewa Kendra, Mukundgarh; Charitable Medical Clinic, New Delhi; and at Dr. Rajendra Prasad Clinic, of Opthalmic Sciences, New Delhi. She had failed to give birth to a child. Ramesh had incurred heavy expenses in her medical treatment. In the year 1986, Satyabhama had a paralytic attack on the right side of her body, and for that, she remained under medical-treatment at various medical institutions, referred to in para-8 of the bail-application. As already stated, even after investigation, the investigating agency did not prima facie find offence under Section 498-A against the petitioners. 14. As regards 'Stridhan', it has already been mentioned that the articles specified by Gokulchand Kanodia, in his affidavit, filed before this Court, were left at his residence, when he had come to Jaipur, on 4th April, 91. In the bail-application filed by Gulzari and three others, Pavankumar, son of Gulzari, filed an affidavit that he was real nephew of the father-in-law of Satyabhama. In the bail-application filed by Gulzari and three others, Pavankumar, son of Gulzari, filed an affidavit that he was real nephew of the father-in-law of Satyabhama. On behalf of Ramesh and Gokulchand Kanodia, certain persons named Matadeen, Prahlad Mittal, Prakash Chaudhary, Shyam Sunder, Girdharilal and Nathmal Modi were appointed as Panchas; and in accordance with the compromise arrived at the 'Stridhan' and an amount of #2352; 1,00,000/- had been given to the father of Satyabhama, in the presence of Nathmal Modi. To the same effect, an affidavit had been filed by Prahlad and Matadeen. During the course of arguments, Mr. R.S. Rathore, appearing for the complainant did not dispute that an amount of #2352; 1,00,000/- has been given through a mediator, for being handed over to Gokulchand Kanodia; and thus, the amount has reached Gokulchand Kanodia through the mediator. A letter of O.P. Joshi Chairman, Municipal Board, Mukundgarh, has been produced in that respect. No counter-affidavit against the receipt of the amount of #2352; 1,00,000/- has been filed. 15. The controversy is with respect to some more articles of 'Satridhan', of which, Gokulchand Kanodia states that he furnished information by way of a list of articles to the police. Suffice it to state that the amount of #2352; 1,00,000/-, which has been given to Gokulchand Kanodia, father of Satyabhama should be sufficient in lieu of the remaining alleged articles of Stridhan of Satyabhama. 16. Suffice it to state that the amount of #2352; 1,00,000/-, which has been given to Gokulchand Kanodia, father of Satyabhama should be sufficient in lieu of the remaining alleged articles of Stridhan of Satyabhama. 16. In the above circumstances, I allow this application for pre-arrest bail filed by Kalicharan, Smt. Ratnidevi and Nandlal, under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, and direct that if these accused petitioners are sought to be arrested by the SHO, PS-Navalgarh (Jhunjhunu), during the course of investigation of FIR No. 3/89, registered at that police station, for offences under sections 498-A & 406, Indian Penal Code, each of them be enlarged on bail by the SHO, or by the Arresting Officer of the said police station, on each of their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of #2352; 6,000/-, together with two sureties in the sum of #2352; 3,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the SHO of the said police station, on the following conditions: (a) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (b) that they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (c) that they shall not leave India, without the previous permission of the Court. Appeal allowed. *******