Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 24 (PNJ)

Mohd. Ifran v. State Of Haryana

2000-01-11

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. F.I.R. No. 196 dated 10.7.99 has been registered at Police Station Punhana under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 313, and 420 IPC on the complaint of Jamsheeda wherein the following allegations have been made:- 2. The complainant was married with petitioner Mohd. Ifran on 4.5.98 and the dowry articles mentioned in the complaint were entrusted to the accused. The petitioner and the other accused were not happy with the marriage, and they taunted her that no motorcycle was given, and that she should bring a motorcycle and Rs. 20,000/-. The complainant was 6 months pregnant, and the petitioner and his mother blamed her of having loose character and demanded that she should get Rs. 20,000/- from her father or else they will get her aborted. But when the father of the complainant expressed his helplessness, they started beating her. On 12.6.99, the accused against the wishes of the complainant administered some tablets and aborted her pregnancy. The accused took her to stamp vendor and under the pretext of getting a ration card, obtained the thumb-impression of the complainant in blank paper. On 16.6.99, the accused locked her in a room and forcibly extracted the names of some persons before a tape- recorder to the effect that the complainant was having illicit relations with these persons, and on her refusal to do so, the complainant was kicked and fisted, and therefore, she gave the statement. 3. The petitioners application for bail was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, and that is why, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail. 4. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations regarding entrustment of dowry is general without specifying either the petitioner or his co-accused, and similarly, the alleged demand for motorcycle and Rs. 20,000/- has been attributed generally without specifying anybody in particular. Of Course, he contends that though it is illegal that the petitioner, his mother and sister blamed the complainant of loose character the complainant had admitted the same and his statement was also recorded. 20,000/- has been attributed generally without specifying anybody in particular. Of Course, he contends that though it is illegal that the petitioner, his mother and sister blamed the complainant of loose character the complainant had admitted the same and his statement was also recorded. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that though the complainant alleged that she was pregnant by 6 months and the accused aborted her pregnancy by giving tablets, there is no acceptable medical evidence for the same and it has also not been shown as to who in particular did so. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations are not only vague, general and without details but have also been made to cover up the illicit relations of the complainant with others. 6. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the medical evidence shows that the pregnancy was aborted, and that the signatures of the complainant were taken in blank paper. He also contends that false allegations have been made against the complainant that she was having illicit relations with others. 7. But taking into consideration the arguments put forward by the learned counsel, 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. 8. Petition allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Gurgaon. Bail allowed.