SHEKHAR PANDEY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.193/2002, u/Ss.498A/406 IPC, P.S. Subzi Mandi, Delhi.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is husband, petitioner No.2 is father-in-law, petitioner No.3 is mother-in-law and petitioner Nos.4-6 are unmarried sisters-in-law of the complainant; allegations against them are totally false and nothing incriminating is to be recovered from them or at their instance. He further submits that petitioners have participated in the investigation, therefore, they may be released on bail. Learned counsel for the State does not contest the fact of their participation in the investigation but submits that some articles of istridhan, including 46 tola gold jewellery is yet to be recovered, therefore, their custodial interrogation is required.

(3.) There is a general tendency to involve almost all the family members of in-laws, even distant relations, when even there is matrimonial discord, either out of vengeance or with a view to create pressure to achieve a 'suitable' settlement. On the one hand, it is true that when the case put forward by the prosecution that articles of Istridhan, particularly jewellery, are yet to be recovered, the investigation cannot be throttled by refusing custodial interrogation, but it is equally true that all the relations cannot be permitted to undergo the trauma of custodial interrogation, on a mere request of the prosecution. In all such cases, the court has to strike a reasonable balance.