SATBIR SINGH @ SANJIB Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -Satbir Singh and Surjit Kaur had sought anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 206 dated 25.5.2001 registered under Sections 406/498-A IPC at Police Station, Sector-5, Panchkula. Bail qua Satbir Singh was declined vide this Court's order dated 22.6.2001. The case was registered at the instance of Anita Malhotra, resident of Sector-11, Panchkula. She had married Satbir Singh-petitioner No. 1 on 8.10.2000 at Panchkula. Her father had given dowry articles according to his status at the time of her marriage as per list annexed with this petition. Soon after marriage, her husband and her mother-in-law Surjit Kaur started harassing her. She was given beatings by her mother-in-law with batons and she was directed to bring Rs. 50000/- from her parents. Her husband not only made this demand but also made a demand for scooter from her. She was subsequently dropped at the house of her parents. On 20.10.2000, she returned to the matrimonial home after her father had made arrangement for Rs. 50000/- and that amount was given to her in-laws. On 28.10.2000, her husband removed all the jewellery which was given by her father at the time of marriage and he also kept her locked in a room for 3 days. After 3 days, her mother-in-law directed her to bring Rs. 3 lac and furniture from her father and when she refused to do so, her in-laws dropped her at her parents' house again. On 1.11.2000, she was again brought back to her matrimonial home by her father Thereafter, she was being beaten daily by the petitioners-accused. Then she got pregnant in December, 2000. On 23.12.2000, her husband and mother-in-law with her husband's two maternal uncles again asked her to bring Rs. 3 lacs and on her refusal, they all took her to Sukhna Lake and her mother-in-law tried to push her in order to throw her in the Sukhna Lake. On raising alarm by her, she was brought back to the house because of fear. Thereafter, she was asked by her mother-in-law that in case she failed to bring Rs. 3 lac, she would be divorced by her son. Then the father of the complainant sought time to give money so demanded. On 11.3.2001, the complainant was again pressed to bring Rs. 3 lacs from her parents and was pulled by hair by her mother-in-law and was beaten by her husband who kicked her in her stomach. Thereafter, she was thrown out of the house by the maternal uncles of her husband. Efforts of her parents for reconciliation in the matrimonial home got no result. It was further stated in the complaint that at the time of solemnisation of marriage, her mother-in-law and both maternal uncles represented before her father that they are the Gazetted Officers in the Government of Punjab.

(2.) THE case is still under investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a false and concocted story has been put in by the complainant in order to rope in the petitioners. It has also been submitted by him that a complaint was made by the petitioner No. 2 who is employed as Stenographer in Central Detective Training School, Chandigarh to the Women Cell, Chandigarh, on 19.3.2001, wherein the petitioner and the complainant were called. Petitioner No. 2 appeared but the complainant did not appear. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that no report was lodged at the police post at Sukhna Lake with regard to the incident that is said to have taken place there. Further according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the father of the complainant was not doing any business or had any financial status to meet the demands allegedly made as stated in the complaint which itself is a circumstance to draw an inference that false accusations have been levelled against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that after interim bail was granted by this Court, the investigation was joined by the petitioner on 25.7.2001.

(3.) WITHOUT expressing any opinion on the merits of the respective stands taken by counsel for the parties and keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I confirm the order dated 22.6.2001 and direct that in the event of arrest of petitioner No. 2-Surjit Kaur, she shall be admitted to bail by the Arresting Officer on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to his satisfaction undertaking therein to abide by the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Petition allowed.