ANITA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER

(2.) ON the basis of statement of Smt. Raj Bala, mother of deceased Sudesh, case was registered under Sections 498-A/304B/34, Indian Penal Code on 13/06/2001. Submissions advanced by Mr. Ali, Advocate is that petitioner No. 1 is the married sister-in-law of deceased while petitioner No. 2 is her husband and both of them have been staying separately in village Barah which is at a distance of about 60 kms. away from the house of in-laws of the deceased in Narela; that the role attributed to petitioners in the FIR is that whenever the petitioners visited in-laws house of the deceased they used to instigate her father-in-law, mother-in-law and other family members in complaining that she had not brought scooter, colour TV and cash from her parents. In support of grant of anticipatory bail to petitioners, he has placed reliance on the decisions in Dolal Ram and Others v. State of Haryana, TV (1994) CCR 851 (SC)=(1995) 1 SCC 349; Promila Malhotra v. State, 1995 (2) C.C, Cases 257 (HC); and Madhu v. State of Punjab, 1998(3) C.C. Cases 464 (HC). ON the other hand, while opposing bail, the submission advanced by Mr. Sharma, Additional P.P. for the State is that in such like cases power under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code ought not be exercised by the Court. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in Samunder Singh v. Slate of Rajasthan and Others,AlR 1987 SC 737 and Basant KumarShukla v. Komal Prasad and Others, II (1992) CCR 1311. Having considered the ratio of the said decisions, the fact that petitioners have been staying separately in village Barah as also the role attributed to the petitioners in the FIR, I am inclined to admit them to anticipatory bail. In the event of their arrest they will be released on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000 /- with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of SHO/IO concerned. They will, however, join investigation as and when required by the 1.0. Dasti, Petition allowed.