PRIYANKA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code'). The deceased Manju died an unnatural death on 12.4.1998. The petitioner is the sister-in-law (Nanad) of the deceased. The stand of the in-laws of the deceased appears to be that the deceased had committed suicide, as she was in a disturbed state of mind because she could not conceive a child. Whereas the case from her parental side is that she was being subjected to cruelty and harassed and tortured in connection with demand of dowry article and they suspect having been killed by her in-laws.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued the matter at great length and has cited a number of authorities. This bail is strongly contested on behalf of the State, who relied on the facts, circumstances and the material available during investigation.

(3.) Briefly the facts are that the deceased Manju was married with Pradeep Khanna on 15.2.1997. She died an un-natural death on 12.4.1998 at her matrimonial house. According to her in-laws' she died of hanging herself and was found hanging in the afternoon on 12.4.1998 in a room on first floor of the house. Intimation apparently had not been given to her parents or her other relations, by her in-laws of their own, soon after her death. It is alleged by her parental relations that Mahindra, brother of deceased had telephoned from Gurgaon to talk with the deceased at about 1.00 p.m. and as there was some trouble with her sister one day earlier when they had talked to her on phone, which she could not tell as her in-laws were present near about her; he was informed by Pradeep Khanna (husband) that the deceased had gone to Bazar. He again telephoned at about 3.00 p.m. when he was informed by Pradeep Khanna that the deceased "Upar Chali Gaye Hai" and the telephone line was cut off suddenly. He again telephoned after some time to ascertain when he was informed that the deceased had committed suicide and had died.