PARSANDI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC praying inter alia for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.429/2009, lodged by Mr.Mehar Chand, father of the deceased daughter-in-law of the petitioner under Sections 498A/304B of the IPC.

(2.) The aforesaid FIR was got registered on the complaint of sMr.Mehar Chand, who stated that the marriage of his deceased daughter, Ms.Munesh was solemnised with the son of the petitioner, Mr.Manish on 11.05.2005 at Rajasthan. After the marriage, Mr.Manish did not bring the daughter of the complainant to the parental home for one year during which period, demands were made for Rs.5 lacs or a vehicle. Thereafter, when Mr.Manish brought the daughter of the complainant to their house on the occasion of the marriage of his nephew, he had demanded and was paid a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Specific allegations were made in the complaint to the effect that in the past six months, Mr.Manish, his father Mr.Tej Singh, his mother, the petitioner herein and Mr. Dheeraj, (Taya Sasur), used to beat up Ms.Munesh and had demanded a sum of Rs.5 lacs as dowry. On 10.07.2009, the complainant received a call from his daughter to the effect that her in-laws would kill her and they should take her back. A telephonic threat was also received from Mr.Tej Singh, father-in-law of the deceased, demanding dowry. When the complainant reached the house of his daughter in the evening of 10.07.2009, they were abused and turned away. On 22.07.2010, when the complainant again approached the in-laws of his daughter, they refused to send Ms.Munesh with them. Ultimately, on 02.08.2009, the complainant came to know that his daughter had committed suicide by hanging herself. As a result, the complainant demanded that legal action be taken against Mr. Manish, his son-in-law, the petitioner herein, i.e., the mother-in-law, Mr. Tej Singh, the father-in-law and Mr.Dheeraj (Taya Sasur).

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to grant of bail as no specific allegation has been levelled against her and the main role has been attributed to the husband of the deceased and her father-in-law. He further states that while rejecting the bail application of the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge got swayed by the fact that the petitioner was avoiding service and proceedings under Sections 82/83 of the Cr.PC for declaring her a proclaimed offender had to be initiated. He submits that the petitioner had sought anticipatory bail from this Court by filing BAIL APPLN.37/2010, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.01.2010 while granting her interim protection of one week and giving her liberty to surrender herself before the Court, and this itself indicates that the petitioner had not abused the legal process. He further states that effective from 22.01.2010, the petitioner appeared on various dates before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for seeking regular bail, which was ultimately rejected vide order dated 03.03.2010. He urges that having regard to the averments made in the complaint, it is a fit case where the petitioner ought to be enlarged on bail as the allegations levelled in the complaint do not make out a case against the petitioner under Section 304B IPC.