SHALINI MALIK Vs. JAYSHREE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions under Sections 439(2) and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' only) are for cancellation of bail granted to the accused/respondents by learned ASJ, Delhi in case FIR No. 399/02 registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar under Sections 406/ 498-A/506/376/120-B/34, IPQ vide orders dated 28.8.2002 and 31.8.2002. The respondent No. 1 in Crl.M(M) No. 3519/02 is the mother-in-law of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 in Petition No. 3520/02 is the husband of the complainant.

(2.) The aforesaid FIR was registered against the accused-respondents on the basis of a complaint made by the petitioner alleging that on 9.5.2002 she was married to respondent-accused Sandeep Solanki according to Hindu rites and customs. Soon after the marriage the respondents started raising dowry demands and on 16.5.2002 she was asked to bring Rs. 5 lakhs from her father so that her husband could start business. When she told her father-in-law that her father had already given Maruti Zen Car and other valuable articles in the dowry and he was not in a position to pay Rs. 5 lakhs more her husband started beating her and her mother- in-law-respondent threatened that she would see as to how she did not bring Rs. 5 lakhs. The petitioner-complainant alleged that on 17.5.2002 when her husband and father-in-law had gone to the factory, her mother-in-law gave her beating and after tying her hands and legs with a double bed with a chunnee she herself went out of the room locking the door from outside. Thereafter her brother-in-law after removing his clothes and the clothes of the complainant made forcible physical relations with her. After he left his mother-in-law came inside the room and she also, after removing her all clothes, laid over her and started licking her from all sides. When her husband came back home she narrated the entire incident to her but he said that they were simply playing with her and will stop harassing her in case she brought Rs. 5 lakhs. According to the complainant She was not allowed to telephone her parents or move out of the house but on 30.6.2002 when her in-laws had gone somewhere and she was alone in the house she picked up courage and left her home. The FIR was, however, lodged on 5.8.2002 i.e. after a delay of about 35 days of leaving her matrimonial home. The respondents in both the petitions were arrested on the same day and were released on bail vide orders dated 28.8.2003 and 31.8.2002. Both of them, therefore, remained in custody for over three weeks.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-complainant, learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel for the respondents/accused.