Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 80 (HP)

Mamta Devi v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2012-03-05

KULDIP SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT : Kuldip Singh, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 175, 176 and 177 of 2012 filed by Mamta Devi, Mohan Lal and Shashi Kumar, respectively for releasing them on bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 24/2012 dated 25.02.2012,registered at Police Station, Theog, under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It has been stated that Narinder Kumar was married to Kamlesh on 14.04.2008. Narinder Kumar and Kamlesh are living separately. The petitioners are harassing Kamlesh for dowry and also treated her with cruelty. On 23.02.2012 the petitioners again treated the complainant Kamlesh with cruelty and demanded dowry. The husband of the complainant gave her beatings. On these allegations, the case was registered. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in view of registration of the case. Mamta Devi is the mother-in-law, Mohan Lal is the father-in-law and Shashi Kumar is the brother-in-law of the complainant Kamlesh. It has been stated that there is no legal evidence to connect the petitioners with the commission of offence. 2. The petitioners are innocent. They have committed no offence. The petitioners have been implicated at the instance Kanshi Ram, father of the complainant and her brothers Surinder and Narvir. Kamlesh is demanding entire apple orchard situate at Jethari. The petitioners are ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. 3. The status report has been filed in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 175 of 2012. It has been stated that case has been registered on the basis of written complaint of Kamlesh Verma. The complainant married with Narinder Verma in the year 2007. The complainant has given birth to a daughter Mehak aged 11 months. The complainant had been living with her in-laws. The mother-in-law and father-in-law had been ill-treating the complainant without any cause and therefore, the husband of the complainant separated from his parents and started living separately along with the complainant. On 22.02.2012 the husband of the complainant called his parents and younger brother for sowing peas. They stayed during the night. 4. On 23.02.2012 the younger brother of the husband of the complainant and his wife went to their home. On a small matter, her husband slapped her and pulled her hairs. The father-in-law kicked her. The mother-in-law gave 'danda' blow on her leg. The complainant was given beatings for not bringing dowry. They stayed during the night. 4. On 23.02.2012 the younger brother of the husband of the complainant and his wife went to their home. On a small matter, her husband slapped her and pulled her hairs. The father-in-law kicked her. The mother-in-law gave 'danda' blow on her leg. The complainant was given beatings for not bringing dowry. The complainant was saved by her grandmother Sumitra. The husband of the complainant told her brother that he would kill her. She has stated that on account of torture by her husband and her in-laws, she would commit suicide. It has come in the investigation that complainant was got medically examined, recoveries have been made. The petitioners are to be interrogated. It has been stated that in case the petitioners are released on bail, they will terrorize the witnesses. 5. Heard and perused the record. In the status report, it has not been stated that for some specific purpose custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. The complainant is already living separately from the unit of the petitioners. The husband has not filed bail application. In the status report, there is nothing for what purpose custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. The petitioners have joined the investigation. There is no allegation that petitioners are not co-operating in the investigation. The vague allegation in the status report that petitioners will terrorize the witnesses is not supported by corroborative material. The petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C. 6. In view of above, Cr.MP (M) Nos.175, 176 and 177 of 2012 are allowed. The petitioners in the event of arrest in FIR No. 24/2012 dated 25.02.2012, registered at Police Station, Theog, under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting officer with the condition that the petitioners shall continue to join the investigation and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. The woman petitioner shall be interrogated strictly in accordance with law. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail applications only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.