Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1731 (PNJ)

Shivani Goel v. State of Haryana

2012-12-04

DAYA CHAUDHARY

body2012
Daya Chaudhary, J.— This petition has been filed on behalf of petitioner Shivani Goel for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 270 dated 25.8.2012 under Sections 406,498- A,315,323,506,376,511,120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sector 5, Panchkula. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is unmarried younger sister of husband of the complainant who has been implicated on the basis of vague allegations, whereas, she was not involved in any manner. The allegations are general and not specific in nature and all family members have been implicated in the case. Learned counsel also submits that the dispute between the complainant and her husband is of temperamental difference and the complainant could not adjust in her matrimonial life as the complaint was made within a very short span of stay in the matrimonial home immediately after marriage. Neither any specific allegations are there against the present petitioner regarding demand of dowry or harassment nor any entrustment of dowry articles to her. Learned counsel also submits that the interim bail was granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula and she was also directed to join the investigation. Accordingly she joined the investigation but her bail was declined only on the ground that she has not cooperated with the investigation and certain dowry articles are to be recovered from her. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is still ready to join the investigation and nothing is to be recovered from her as no entrustment of dowry articles was to the petitioner. In case any recovery is to be effected, and the same can be effected from other accused. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an unmarried girl, who is of marriageable age and no purpose would be served by sending her to police custody as her matrimonial prospects would be affected. Learned counsel also submits that as per allegations in the complaint, the complainant was thrown out of her matrimonial home on 23.5.2012, after being assaulted which resulted in termination of her pregnancy but the complaint was made on 24.7.2012 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police and thereafter the complaint was made to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula on 22.8.2012 without waiting outcome of the enquiry. However, the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. However, the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. As per allegations, numerous blows were given on her stomach but neither any complaint was made to the police authority nor it was brought to the notice of the doctor nor any opinion was also given by the doctor to the effect that the abortion was due to injury caused on the stomach. The complainant is a highly qualified girl who has done MBA (Finance), and seems to be well aware about her rights as well and also to take necessary steps in case any grievance is there. Even as per allegations, the complainant was accompanied by her mother in law to the doctor and even she has also been implicated. The brother of the complainant was present at the time of alleged occurrence but still no objection was raised by him also. Learned counsel for the State as well as the complainant opposes the bail of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not a student at present and she is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail as she has approached this Court by concealing certain material facts and misrepresented herself to be a student, whereas, when it was inquired upon she is not found to be a student. All efforts have been made to misrepresent the lower court as well as this Court by relying upon different documents as at one point of time it has been stated that she is student of Panjab University, whereas identity card by Symbiosis Institute of Management, Pune has been relied upon. A serious objection has also been raised that the documents with the petition filed before the Lower Court were manipulated as two documents of the same date have been procured, whereas, as per statement of the doctor the said documents were never issued by him. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the contents of the FIR and other documents on the file. Admittedly, the petitioner is an unmarried girl, who is of marriageable age. Initially, the complaint was moved before ACP, Panchkula which was referred to Women Cell, Panchkula and subsequently without waiting the outcome of that complaint, the complainant filed complaint under section 156(3) CrPC before the Court and FIR was registered. The present petitioner was granted interim bail by the lower court and was also directed to join the investigation. Initially, the complaint was moved before ACP, Panchkula which was referred to Women Cell, Panchkula and subsequently without waiting the outcome of that complaint, the complainant filed complaint under section 156(3) CrPC before the Court and FIR was registered. The present petitioner was granted interim bail by the lower court and was also directed to join the investigation. Her bail has been declined only on the ground that she has not cooperated with the investigation and recovery of the dowry articles is to be made. The petitioner being unmarried sister-in-law of the complaint has hardly any role in entrustment of dowry articles, when other family members are there, including husband, mother in law and father in law of the complaint. Otherwise also, no purpose would be served by sending her behind the bars. Moreover, she undertakes to appear before the Court and to abide by all the terms and conditions to be imposed by the trial Court. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and moreover her custodial interrogation is not required as other accused are there for effecting recovery of dowry articles and she is ready to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by all terms and conditions to be imposed and without commenting anything on the allegations, at this stage, as it is a matter of evidence, but keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as mentioned above, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court. In case the petitioner is required for any investigation, she shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.