Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 909 (PNJ)

Om Parkash v. State Of Haryana

2002-09-12

R.C.KATHURIA

body2002
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned petitions filed by Om Parkash, Shakuntla and Madan, petitioners-accused for seeking bail in case bearing FIR No. 427 dated 20.12.2001 registered under Sections 304-B, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station, Model Town, Panipat. 2. Present case came to be registered on the statement of Ram Niwas, complainant resident of Geeta Colony, Safidon. His sister Sushila was married with Sushil son of Om Parkash Mahajan, resident of Agarsain Colony, Panipat on 29.10.2001. Dowry articles were given to his sister according to the financial capacity of the complainant. After a week of the marriage, Sushila visited the house of the complainant and informed them that Om Parkash, father-in-law, Shakuntla, mother-in-law, Madan, brother-in-law and Bharti, sister-in-law (Jethani) had taunted her on account of insufficiency of dowry and further complained to her that car and cash had not been given in her marriage by her brothers. Her brothers persuaded her to return to the matrimonial home four days thereafter. Om Parkash, Shakuntla, Madan and Bharti repeatedly kept on making demand of Rs. 2 lacs and a car on telephone from the complainant. The complainant had assured them that as and when they would be able to arrange for the money, their demand would be met by them. Harassment of Sushila continued at the hands of the above mentioned accused. On 20.12.2001 at about 8.30 a.m. telephonic information was received by the complainant at his house to the effect that Sushila had consumed poison. On getting this information, the complaint along with his family members reached at the house of her in-laws and found her dead. After making enquiries they came to know that Sushila had committed suicide by consuming poison because of the harassment faced by her at the hands of the above stated accused regarding her inability to meet the demand made by them. It had also transpired during the investigation that Sushil husband of Sushila also consumed poison but he was saved by timely medical aid given to him. I have heard counsel for the parties at length. 3. It had also transpired during the investigation that Sushil husband of Sushila also consumed poison but he was saved by timely medical aid given to him. I have heard counsel for the parties at length. 3. Counsel representing Om Parkash and Shakuntla, petitioners-accused while pressing for their bail mainly contended before me that both Shakuntla and Om Parkash had been residing at Village Jatana, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana, while deceased had been living with her husband, Sushil Kumar, at Panipat and thus they had no role to play in the suicide committed by Sushila and in support of the stand taken reliance was placed on the photostat copy of identity card issued by the Election Commission of India, Annexure-P.1. Additionally, it was pointed out by him that the fact that Sushil Kumar, husband of Sushila had taken poison is indicative of the fact that possibly a tiff had taken place between husband and wife and as a result thereof both of them had decided to end their lives by consuming poison for which blame cannot be shifted on the shoulders of the petitioners. It was also contended by him that allegations made in the report lodged are not only vague but general in nature and even if these are taken on their face value, the demand of car and cash amount was made only for the benefit of the husband, who had not applied for bail. 4. Counsel representing Madan, petitioner-accused stated that the allegations levelled in the report and the challan presented in Court against the petitioner are general in nature as no specific circumstances of demand of dowry had been attributed to the petitioner and the Police had not taken due notice of the fact that Madan, petitioner along with his wife, had been living separately from Sushila and her husband and were maintaining separate kitchen and thus they had no occasion to meddle in their life at all and they have been roped into this case being the close relations of the husband of the deceased. To support the stand taken reference was made to the fact that wife of the petitioner was also named in the report but after investigation, the Police had found her innocent which falsified the genuineness of the version given by the complainant in the report made. 5. To support the stand taken reference was made to the fact that wife of the petitioner was also named in the report but after investigation, the Police had found her innocent which falsified the genuineness of the version given by the complainant in the report made. 5. Opposing the submissions made it has been strenuously urged by the State counsel that all the petitioners-accused had played active role in harassing Sushila, deceased on account of insufficiency of dowry given to her at the time of her marriage by her brothers and they had made her life miserable which forced her to take extreme step of committing suicide and for that reason concession of bail be not extended to them. It was also pointed out by him that Sushil Kumar, husband of Sushila had also taken poison, is explainable from the fact that after he found that his wife had committed suicide by consuming poison he too, to escape the criminal liability, sought to end his life but was unsuccessful. Regarding the availability of the poison in the house it was stated by the State counsel that Sushil Kumar being Chemist had an easy access to the poison and thus, according to him, circumstances brought on record do not warrant that concession of bail be extended to them. 6. The merits of the respective stands taken by the parties have to be adjudicated upon during the trial of the case. Om Parkash, petitioner no doubt had got admitted his son, Sushil Kumar, in the hospital on 30.11.2001. The fact remains that Om Parkash and Shakuntla had been residing at Village Jatana, District Ludhiana which is supported by the photostat copy of Election Identity Card. As regards Madan, petitioner-accused, it is not the case of the prosecution that he was having joint resident and kitchen with the deceased. Rather, he was living separately in the lower storey of the house whereas the deceased and her husband had been residing in the upper storey of the house. 7. Under the circumstances of the case, I accept the bail applications and order that the petitioners shall be admitted to bail on their furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Magistrate.