Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1830 (RAJ)

Shardul Singh (Col. ) v. State of Rajasthan

2011-08-26

RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE

body2011
Hon'ble RATHORE, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The case of the prosecution is that after having the ring ceremony on 29.08.2010, with adequate arrangements for the occasion incurring an expenditure of over 2 lacs, the widow mother of the informant had the arrangements made for marriage on 18.11.2010, at Ashok Club, Jaipur; for the stay of the bridegroom at Hotel Clarks, Amer and Baratis at Hotel 1589 at 'C' Scheme, Jaipur. The total expenditure incurred in arrangements and the gifts given at various marriage ceremonies till the send off, of the bridegroom, his family members and guests was over 20 lacs. But even then the accused persons were blaming for sub-standard arrangements and food. Thereafter on reaching their home at Noida, the informant was being harassed and humiliated by her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law for not coming to their expectations and giving insufficient dowry. The informant was told that many people were ready to give huge amount of wealth to them as the husband was highly educated and was working on a high salaried post. It was said that the accused persons were expecting to get about a crore of rupees. They had than started demanding a Honda City car and rupees 25 lacs in cash. In furtherance of said demand, the accused persons had given beating to the informant on 26.11.2010 i.e. within a week of marriage and reaching her in-laws house. She was threatened for death if demand was not fulfilled. Subsequently, the mother-in-law of the informant had asked the accused husband to give slow poison. The father-in-law had then brought some tablets and mother-in-law had forcefully put them in the mouth of the informant and the husband forced her to drink water. Consequently, the informant started become unconscious and she was made to sign some blank papers. When the informant became conscious on the next day, the father-in-law and mother-in-law had told the accused husband to take the informant to Shimla and continue to give slow poison, till the demand of Honda City car and 25 lacs is fulfilled or she would become a mental case by which they would leave her and get the accused Sandeep Singh remarried which would get them a lot of wealth. 3. Thereafter, the informant was taken to Shimla on 27.11.2010 and attitude of the husband remained the same. 3. Thereafter, the informant was taken to Shimla on 27.11.2010 and attitude of the husband remained the same. The harassment and mental torture of the wife continued as before. Thereafter, the informant had come to know from the neighbours that the husband was working on an ordinary post. The accused husband then talked to his parents on phone and informed that the informant had come to know the reality as such it was not proper to keep her with them. On 15.12.2010, she was brought back to Noida. The informant was then able to convey about the happenings to her mother. The mother and brother of the complainant went to Noida and tried to persuade the accused persons not to harass her. But both of them were ill-treated and accused persons again raised their demand. After the said incident on 18.12.2010, the accused persons told the mother of the informant to take her away otherwise she would be done to death. The mother-in-law had then brought a gun and gave it to the accused husband and asked him to murder the informant so that the entire dispute comes to an end. She said that they would get a queue of girls for him. The husband Sandeep Singh had pointed the gun towards the informant and said that they would keep her only if the demand of Honda City car and rupees 25 lacs is fulfilled. 4. Having seen danger to the life of the informant, her mother was compelled to bring her, immediately as she was. Thereafter, the informant tried to contact her husband many a times but on every occasions, the aforesaid demand was repeated. Later on accused Sandeep Singh came to Jaipur on 30.01.2011 and again threatened the informant, while she was taken in a car near Gaurav Tower, Malviya Nagar, that if the demand is not fulfilled within a month then she would face dire consequences. Again in the month of February, 2011, the accused persons told the informant that she was married only for money but dowry had not been given as expected and if she wants to live with her husband then arrangements be made for fulfilling their demand. On 22.04.2011, all the accused persons had come to the house of the informant. At that time, apart from the mother, relatives of the informant namely Dilip Singh and Mahavir Singh were also present. On 22.04.2011, all the accused persons had come to the house of the informant. At that time, apart from the mother, relatives of the informant namely Dilip Singh and Mahavir Singh were also present. They again made demand that if rupees 25 lacs and Honda City car is hot given to them immediately then they would not take back the informant. According to the prosecution, the accused persons had malafide intention since the beginning. They had committed fraud and had harassed and humiliated the informant. She was given the tablets forcefully and threatening was given for being done to death. 5. On having received the complaint under Section 156(3), the police registered the case only for the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC whereas request for other offences was also made. 6. The learned counsel for the accused petitioners has submitted that the accused have been falsely implicated in this case because no offence has been committed by them. Further, it has been submitted that the informant has levelled allegations against the accused persons without any basis. It has also been submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the accused had never demanded any dowry from the complainant party nor they had harassed her in any manner. It has also been submitted that the dowry articles have been returned to the informant through the investigating officer. Therefore, it has been requested by the learned counsel that the accused petitioners be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the cases of (1) Birendra Jha @ Virendra Jha vs. State of Jharkhand, (ABA No. 4654 of 2001), decided on 11.07.2001; (2) Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632 ; (3) Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2011 (1) Crimes 109 (SC); (4) Smt. Surjit Kaur Chopra vs. State & Anr. (Bail Application No. 1711/2007, decided by the High Court of Delhi on 21.08.2007, (5) Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 2516 of 2007), decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14.12.2007 and (6) Chander Bhan & Anr. vs. State (Bail Application No.1627/2008), decided by the High Court of Delhi on 04.08.2008. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has seriously opposed the bail application. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 2516 of 2007), decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14.12.2007 and (6) Chander Bhan & Anr. vs. State (Bail Application No.1627/2008), decided by the High Court of Delhi on 04.08.2008. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has seriously opposed the bail application. He has submitted that there are specific allegations against the accused petitioners which have come on record from the first information report as well as the evidence collected during the course of investigation by way of statements of the witnesses, including the one who were present at the time when the demand of dowry was made by the accused at the residence of the informant in Jaipur. The learned counsel for the complainant has also opposed the bail application filed by the accused petitioners. He has submitted that the accused persons had harassed, humiliated, given beating and mentally tortured the informant. Further, he has submitted that the accused persons had tried to cause serious damage to the health of the informant by forcefully giving some tablets so as to declare her a mental case with the object to remarry the accused Sandeep Singh for procuring dowry. It has also been submitted that the informant was threatened by some strangers on 10.06.2011 while she was returning from the High Court. An application in this regard was also submitted to the SHO of concerning police station which was taken on record but no action was taken. The learned Public Prosecutor has also confirmed about the said application, filed by the applicant, being in the case diary. In respect of return of dowry articles, the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that many of them are still retained by the accused persons and an application in this respect, with the list of articles, has been submitted to the SHO concerned on that very day i.e. 23.08.2011. In such view of the matter, the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioners do not deserve any indulgence of anticipatory bail and as such their bail applications be dismissed. 8. So far as the case law cited by the counsel for the accused petitioners is concerned, it would suffice to say that in a case of bail matters, no case law would be binding as every case depends upon the facts of each case. 8. So far as the case law cited by the counsel for the accused petitioners is concerned, it would suffice to say that in a case of bail matters, no case law would be binding as every case depends upon the facts of each case. Moreover, what is more important is the nature of accusation levelled against the accused persons then the provision of law under which the alleged offence is said to have been committed. The cases relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners were decided in different fact situation, then the present one. The aforesaid facts of the instant case are not only peculiar but also quite specific and giving the details. Therefore, it cannot be said that the case against the accused petitioners is totally false or baseless. 9. In view of the above, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case as revealed from the material on record including the case diary as well as the nature of allegation specifically levelled against the accused persons in the first information report and the evidence collected so far during the course of investigation, I do not find any just reason to grant indulgence of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 10. Consequently, the anticipatory bail applications filed by the accused petitioners are dismissed.