Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1790 (HP)

Narinder Kaur Pall v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2019-11-27

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail applications have been maintained by the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their release, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 23 of 2019, dated 14.06.2019, under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC, registered in Women Police Station Solan, District Solan, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petitions, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are residents of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by sending him behind the bars, so they be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 14.06.2019 an FIR alongwith other documents was received in the office of Superintendent of Police, Solan. As per the FIR, Smt. Navdeep Kaur (complainant) was married to Sunny Pal (petitioner herein). After one month of marriage her husband Sunny Pal and mother-in-law Narinder Kaur Pal (petitioner herein) told her that she brought insufficient dowry. The petitioners used to maltreat her and beat her. Despite indulgence of elders of the complainant and repeated requests, the petitioners paid no heed and continue to maltreat her. In August, 2018, she was ousted by the petitioners and a demand of rupees three lac and a car was raised. Upon the complaint, so made by the complainant, a case was registered and the investigation ensued. Police recorded the statements of the witnesses. On 25.09.2019 the petitioners joined the investigation and since then they are joining and co-operating in the investigation. Police procured the records qua the marriage of the complainant with petitioner Sunny Pal. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners be dismissed, as the petitioners have committed a serious crime. There is possibility that in case at this stage the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may flee from justice, as they are residents of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, so the applications be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. The petitioners can also tamper with the prosecution evidence, so the applications be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that the petitioners are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners behind the bars, as they are joining and co-operating the investigation. He has argued that the custody of the petitioners is not at all required by the police, so the bail applications be allowed. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioners have committed a serious offence, so at this stage, in case they are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. The petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation and their custodial interrogation is not at all required by the police, so the application be allowed and the petitioners be enlarged on bail. 7. At this stage, considering the fact that the petitioners are joining and co-operating in the investigation, they are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, considering the fact that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case they are granted bail, the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not at all required by the police and also considering the overall facts, which have come on record, and without discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the present is a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest, is required to be exercised in their favour. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and it is ordered that the petitioners, in the event of their arrest, in case FIR No. 23 of 2019, dated 14.06.2019, under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC, registered in Women Police Station Solan, District Solan, H.P., shall be released on bail forthwith in this case, subject to their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioners will appear before the learned Trial Court/Police/authorities as and when required. (ii) That the petitioners will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii) That the petitioners will not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court. 8. In view of the above, the petitions are disposed of.