Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 499 (PNJ)

Vinod Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2002-05-06

R.C.KATHURIA

body2002
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. Vinod Kumar, petitioner-accused seeks bail in case bearing FIR No. 683 dated 13.10.2001 registered under Sections 498-A, 406 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station City, Gurgaon. 2. The present case was registered on the statement of Jai Ram, father of Raj Bala wife of Vinod Kumar, petitioner-accused. Mani Ram and Poonam are parents of Vinod Kumar. According to the assertion of Jai Ram, his daughter Raj Bala was married to Vinod Kumar on 5.3.1991 at Gurgaon. At the time of marriage, Vinod Kumar was employed in Police and serving at Delhi. Jai Ram was employed in the Malaria Office, Gurgaon on the post of M.P.H.S. At the time of marriage, the complainant had given dowry articles to his daughter according to his status. After some months of the marriage, Vinod Kumar, husband, Poonam mother-in-law, Mani Ram Gautam, father-in-law and brothers-in-law of Raj Bala started harassing the complainant on account of insufficiency of dowry. On 6.3.1992, Raj Bala was mercilessly beaten and driven out of the house with definite direction to her that she could return to the matrimonial home only if she brings Rs. 50,000/- from her parents otherwise she would be killed. Raj Bala reached her house on 6.3.1992 at 7.00 p.m. and narrated the above incident to him. Next day complainant along with Raj Bala went to his parents and brothers, who misbehaved with the complainant and asked him to get out of the house along with his daughter otherwise they would be killed. The complainant disappointed with the behaviour of the accused returned to his house. On the insistence of wife of the complainant, he in the company of his son Kasturi Lal Azad went to the house of in-laws of Raj Bala and handed over some money arranged by him. For some time, in-laws of Raj Bala did not harass her. About six months thereafter she was again given beating and asked to bring colour TV and scooter from her father otherwise she would be thrown out of the house. A complaint about this incident was made to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi against Vinod Kumar. Vinod Kumar admitted his fault before the Deputy Commissioner of Police and thereafter took his wife with him after a compromise was effected between the parties. A complaint about this incident was made to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi against Vinod Kumar. Vinod Kumar admitted his fault before the Deputy Commissioner of Police and thereafter took his wife with him after a compromise was effected between the parties. On 8.3.2000, Raj Bala was taken to Village Bangdola (Palam) where she started residing in a rented house with her husband. Three months thereafter Vinod Kumar removed the clothes of Raj Bala and bolted her in a room and knob of gas cylinder was opened in order to kill her. On hearing the cries of Raj Bala, her neighbours gathered there and saved her. Thereafter the complaint received a phone call and went to village Bangdola and brought back his daughter to his house. Thereafter, information about this incident was given to the parents of Vinod Kumar who approved the action of their son. On 20-6-2000, the complainant in the company of Raj Bala appeared before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi and made a written complaint in this regard to the Police Station, Parsad Nagar. Thereafter Vinod Kumar met with an accident and no further action was taken against him on the complaint made by the complainant. After some time Vinod Kumar again threatened the complainant on telephone to kidnap his grand-daughter so as to marry with her. A written report in this regard was made to Police Post, Pataudi Road, Delhi. The Incharge of the Police Post called all the accused in the Police Post and got effected a compromise between the parties. The Panchayat was also convened in Kamla Nehru Park, Delhi and a compromise was arrived at between the parties. Subsequently, the accused backed out of the compromise and stated that they will not allow Raj Bala to live in the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the present report was lodged. 3. Counsel representing the petitioner-accused, while pressing for his bail has taken several grounds. Firstly, that the petitioner was married with Raj Bala on 5.3.1991 and on the insistence of his wife, he had even agreed to live in village Bangdola but the complainant wanted the petitioner to reside at his residence as Ghar-Jamai in order to black-mail him. 3. Counsel representing the petitioner-accused, while pressing for his bail has taken several grounds. Firstly, that the petitioner was married with Raj Bala on 5.3.1991 and on the insistence of his wife, he had even agreed to live in village Bangdola but the complainant wanted the petitioner to reside at his residence as Ghar-Jamai in order to black-mail him. Secondly, that on 16.9.1992, the petitioner had made a complaint to the Station House Officer, Police Station City, Gurgaon to the effect that Jai Ram was putting pressure on him to leave the house of his parents so as to press him to reside with him and also extended threat to him to involve him in false case if he did not accede to his request. Thirdly, the petitioner had also submitted a detailed application dated 16.4.1992 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi with regard to the harassment being faced by him at the hands of his father-in-law and wife which was followed by another application dated 21.7.1992 wherein it was stated by him that his wife had left the house on 6.3.1992 and thereafter he had made efforts to bring back his wife to the matrimonial home but the complainant misbehaved with him and subjected him to beating. Fourthly, that in June 1992 the complainant had gone to Gurgaon where his brother-in-law, Kasturi Lal Azad, along with his friends stopped him and tried to give him beating. Fifthly, that on 6.7.1992, mother of the petitioner had gone to the house of the complainant in order to bring back her daughter-in-law but she too was threatened and when the petitioner had gone on 7.7.1992 to take back his wife, he was threatened by the family members of his wife. Sixthly, that on 16.10.1992, Jai Ram, father-in-law of the petitioner had met the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi and gave a written application to him that he would send wife of the petitioner on the assurance that in case he made any complaint against the petitioner action would be taken against him. It is thereafter a compromise was got arrived at between the petitioner and his wife and in support of the stand taken, copy of the letter written by Jai Ram, Annexure P-3, has been placed on record. Seventhly, that the father of the petitioner had given a plot of 50 sq. It is thereafter a compromise was got arrived at between the petitioner and his wife and in support of the stand taken, copy of the letter written by Jai Ram, Annexure P-3, has been placed on record. Seventhly, that the father of the petitioner had given a plot of 50 sq. yards to him and helped him to construct a small house but the wife of the petitioner and the complainant started pressurising him to sell the house so that they could be able to live with the complainant which demand was not met by him and for that reason he was threatened by the complainant that he would be involved in false dowry case. Lastly, that because of the above stated events, the petitioner developed depression and met with an accident on 18.7.2000 and even when he tried to bring back his wife to the matrimonial home he was threatened by the complainant. 4. Opposing the submissions made, it has been contended by the State Counsel as well as counsel representing the complainant that Raj Bala during the period of her stay with her husband, had not only been harassed, maltreated and beaten but an attempt and also been made to kill her by the petitioner and taking into account the above circumstances mentioned in the report lodged, the concession of bail be not extended to the petitioner-accused. 5. The merits of the respective stands taken by the parties have to be adjudicated upon during the trial of the case. The prominent circumstance which is clearly spelled out from the record is that at no stage any report was lodged by the complainant or Raj Bala with regard to any of the incidents mentioned in the complaint including the incident when the petitioner is stated to have confined her in the room and opened the knob of gas cylinder in order to kill her. Despite these incidents, Raj Bala had been living with her husband in a separate rented accommodation in village Bangdola prior to the lodging of the present case. It has also come on record that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi had also brought rapprochement between the parties and it is thereafter Raj Bala has been living with her husband. 6. Taking into account the totality of circumstances on record, I find no justification to deny the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused. It has also come on record that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi had also brought rapprochement between the parties and it is thereafter Raj Bala has been living with her husband. 6. Taking into account the totality of circumstances on record, I find no justification to deny the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused. Consequently, interim order dated 31.10.2001 is confirmed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be admitted to bail by the Arresting Officer on his furnishing bail bond and surety bond to his satisfaction undertaking therein to abide by the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.