Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 95 (PNJ)

Bharosi Devi v. State Of Haryana

2000-01-27

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. Heard counsel for both the sides. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that while the first petitioner is the mother, the second petitioner is the unmarried sister of the husband of Manju, the daughter of the complainant. He also points out that the third petitioner is the paternal aunts son of husband of Manju while the 4th petitioner is not related to them at all. According to him, the fifth petitioner is the elder brother of the husband of Manju, while the sixth petitioner is the wife of brother of husband of complainants daughter Manju. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the third- petitioner is residing at a place called Garhwal, in Uttar Pradesh, which is 500 k.m. away from Delhi. He also contends that husband Rajinder Kumar and his brother Sanjai Kumar have been granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, himself on 7.8.1999 and while they were in police remand the dowry, articles have also been recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that the there are no specific allegations of entrustment and cruelty against the petitioners inasmuch as all the allegations are general and vague against them. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the grievances of the complainant seems to be that the husband is having illicit relation with another lady. According to him, the first petitioner had even issued a publication on 24.10.1998 disowning his son. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. 5. The learned counsel for the State concedes that the petitioners have joined investigation and only contends that the allegations against the petitioners are specific. He also concedes that the recovery of some of the articles have been made but contends that some more articles are to be recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand contends that simply because it is alleged that some of the articles are to be recovered, the petitioners cannot be declined bail. 6. In these circumstances, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. 7. 6. In these circumstances, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. 7. In the event of arrest of the petitioners on the allegations found in the F.I.R. mentioned in this petition, the petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. 8. However, the petitioners shall abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Disposed of. Bail allowed.