Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1081 (PNJ)

Shakuntala Devi v. State of Haryana

2016-04-06

DAYA CHAUDHARY

body2016
JUDGMENT Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, J.: - The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0016 dated 13.02.2016 registered under Sections 323, 376, 498- A, 506 of Indian Penal Code at Women Police Station, Faridabad. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is mother-in-law and petitioner No.2 is brother-in-law, who is graduate in engineering and they have falsely been implicated in the case whereas they were not involved in any manner. As per allegations levelled in the FIR, the complainant was taken by the accused-husband to his house after marriage and both the petitioners were not happy and asked about the property and FD of the complainant. The complainant was harassed by accused persons because of the amount of FD and more demand of dowry was also made. Learned counsel also submits that neither any specific role has been attributed to the petitioners nor any specific date has been mentioned as to when the demand was made. There was unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR. 3. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and have also perused the allegations levelled in the FIR. 4. As per allegations levelled in the FIR, both the petitioners demanded dowry and maltreated the complainant for bringing less dowry. Not only demand of dowry was made but allegations are also there that the main accused-Nitin Goyal with the assistance of Dheeraj Maheshwari prepared blue film of the complainant and uploaded it on the internet to tarnish her image in the society. The complainant was blackmailed and a threat was also given to kill her. 5. It has come in the order passed by the lower Court that CD of the blue film of the complainant could not be recovered and for proper investigation, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. Serious allegations are there against the present petitioners as they harassed the complainant and maltreated her. Co-accused of the petitioners, namely, Dheeraj Maheshwari, attempted to commit rape upon the complainant but she saved herself. 6. Moreover, the benefit of anticipatory bail can be granted by considering various factors like nature of offence, role attributed to the accused and that there is no chance that the accused may temper with the evidence or witness in case, they are released on anticipatory bail. 7. 6. Moreover, the benefit of anticipatory bail can be granted by considering various factors like nature of offence, role attributed to the accused and that there is no chance that the accused may temper with the evidence or witness in case, they are released on anticipatory bail. 7. Keeping in view the role attributed to the petitioners and the allegations levelled in the FIR, no ground is made out to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners and the petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.