Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 652 (HP)

Neelam Rani v. Kuldeep Singh

2012-10-01

KULDIP SINGH

body2012
Judgment Kuldip Singh, Judge . 1. This petition under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for the cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.1 in Cr.M.P(M) No. 407 of 2012 on 22.5.2012. 2. It has been stated that the High Court on 22.5.2012 has granted bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to respondent No.1 in FIR No. 81 of 2012 dated 11.5.2012 registered under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC, at Police Station, Amb. The FIR No. 81 of 2012 was registered at the instance of the petitioner. 3. On 13.6.2012, Ramesh Chand, Smt. Krishna Devi, parents of the accused, Vikram Singh, brother of the accused, Shankar Dass, uncle of the accused, Smt. Chancha Devi W/o Shankar Dass, Vijay Kumar S/o Shankar Dass and Smt. Renu W/o Vijay Kumar came to the house of the petitioner at Amb to pressurize the petitioner to compromise the matter and withdraw the complaint. The petitioner refused to oblige them, they threatened the petitioner and her family members with dire consequences. The petitioner had filed a complaint with the police. The police proceeded against the culprits only under Sections 107, 150 Cr.P.C. The accused is an influential person. The petitioner and her family members had been repeatedly approaching the police with respect to progress of the investigation in FIR No. 81 of 2012 but every time they were put off on one pretext or the other. The investigation in the case was being spoiled deliberately by the Investigating Officer. 4. Kumari Nisha, daughter of the petitioner committed suicide. She was mentally tortured and harassed by the accused and the daughter of the petitioner was subjected to torture, harassment and cruelty by her in-laws as well. All these important facts are being suppressed in the investigation by the police under the influence of the accused and his family. 5. The respondent No.1 is abusing the liberty of the bail in connivance with his family members by influencing the investigation of the case. They are holding out open threats to the petitioner and her family members. The submission has been made for cancellation of the bail. 6. Heard. The submission of the petitioner is two fold. 5. The respondent No.1 is abusing the liberty of the bail in connivance with his family members by influencing the investigation of the case. They are holding out open threats to the petitioner and her family members. The submission has been made for cancellation of the bail. 6. Heard. The submission of the petitioner is two fold. It has been submitted that on 13.6.2012 several persons named above, came to the house of the petitioner and threatened her to compromise the matter, when petitioner refused to compromise, she and her family were threatened with dire consequences. The police proceeded against the culprits only under Sections 107, 150 Cr.P.C. instead of taking suitable deterrent action against the culprits. It has been alleged that the accused is abusing the liberty of the bail in connivance with his family by influencing the investigation. The bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was granted to respondent No.1 on 22.5.2012. 7. There is no allegation that on 13.6.2012 the respondent No.1 was present with the persons named in the petition and threatened the petitioner. The allegations in the petition that after the bail order dated 22.5.2012, the respondent No.1 is misusing his liberty in connivance with his family members, is vague. On behalf of respondent No.1, it has been stated that he is serving in CRPF in North East. There is no worth believing material on record to show that after 22.5.2012 the respondent No.1 has misused his liberty and influenced the investigation. The investigating agency has not alleged any interference in the investigation by respondent No.1 after 22.5.2012. The petitioner has miserably failed to bring on record any post bail misconduct of respondent No.1 influencing the investigation in FIR No. 81 of 2012 or otherwise misuse of liberty of bail on the part of respondent No.1. There is no merit in the petition. 8. In view of above, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.