MANJU GARG Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition the Petitioners who are the mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively of the complainant Ms. Surbhi seek anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 145/2010 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Rohini North.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioners have joined the investigation on 24 occasions. Raid has already been conducted at the house and whatever items of dowry/ istridhan were there, the same have been taken away on the identification of the complainant. The allegations in the FIR against the Petitioners are at best demand of money, the veracity of which will be adjudicated during trial. Bail is the rule and jail is an exception. The principle of the accused being innocent till proven guilty has to be borne in mind, besides balancing the same with the necessity to arrest. Since the Petitioners have joined the investigation as and when they were required, no custodial interrogation is required. The silver and gold items stated in the complaint in the FIR were given to the complainant by her parents and not to the Petitioners. Further the value of these items have been inflated. False FIRs are being registered against the Petitioners. The Petitioners are not aware that Section 82 Cr.P.C. proceedings were initiated against them and hence the same have not been mentioned in the present petition and the moment it came to their notice, they approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who has been pleased to stay the proceedings. Further the Petitioners have already deposited a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs in the form of a FDR in the name of the complainant with the investigating officer, as undertaken by them before this Court on 7th August, 2012 and are willing to fulfill any other condition which this Court may impose. The Petitioners are further willing to deposit a sum of Rs. 17.5 lakhs though they dispute the cost of the items as calculated by the complainant. Reliance is placed on Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2011 AIR(SC) 312.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that there are serious allegations of preparing video film of the complainant in unwarranted condition in her bedroom with her husband which was uploaded. Though laptop, handycam and mobile phone were recovered, however they were without SIM card, memory card and SD memory card. The moment an application for cancellation of the bail of the son of the Petitioners was filed, a locked SIM card of the mobile phone was handed over to the investigating officer. Though the father of the complainant wanted to spend Rs. 50 lakhs on the marriage, however on the insistence of the Petitioners Rs. 2 crores had to be spent. Statement of Hanuman Prashad, the domestic servant of Petitioners for the last many years was recorded who confirmed ill behavior by the accused persons with the complainant on various occasions and also confirmed that dowry articles used to come from complainant's parents house loaded in tempo and cars on every occasion. Though the Petitioners deposited a booklet in Police Station on 16th March, 2012 which includes photocopies of the complainant's passport, viza papers, medical papers and certain typed SMS (text messages), however till date the original of these documents have not been given nor the source of the said SMSs have been furnished. Though raid was conducted, however no jewellery could be recovered from the bank locker. Besides demand of dowry, the complainant was treated with cruelty and she was beaten on 17th March, 2011 when she was brought back to her home by her brother. The DD entry recorded, which was duly signed by the Petitioner No.2, stated that she was not taking with her any article. On 20th March, 2011 the Petitioner No.2 came along with his son. Again there was a fight at the parental home of the complainant and a PCR call was made. When the complainant was examined on 20th March, 2011 she had bluish red bruises on her right arm. In view of the serious allegations against the Petitioners, no case for anticipatory bail is made out.