BHAGTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bhagti Devi, petitioner seeks bail in case bearing F.I.R. No. 50 dated 5.7.2001 registered under Sections 304- B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station, Dhand.

(2.) The present case came to be registered on the statement of Mewa Devi mother of Meena Devi, deceased. According to the allegations made Meena Devi was married to Naresh about four years prior to the lodging of the present report. Dowry articles were given to her by the complainant according to her financial capacity. After some day of marriage of Meena Devi her husband Naresh and her mother-in-law Bhagti Devi, petitioner-accused, made a demand of Rs. 60,000/- and one same occasion of the motorcycle. She was subjected to beating by her husband and the petitioner-accused. Meena Devi complained about the harassment and cruelty meted out to her at the hands of her husband and mother-in-law to her parents during her visit to their house. Efforts of the Panchayat convened on several occasions did not provide any respite to Meena Devi About three months prior to her death Meena Devi was sent to her matrimonial home in order to live with her husband. On 5.7.2001. Jagdish, brother of the complainant visited village Mundri and told the complainant that Meena Devi had been murdered by her husband and mother-in-law by causing injuries to her. Thereafter the complainant in the company of her relatives and other respectables of the village went to Village Pabnawa and found Meena Devi dead with many injuries on her body. After completion of the investigation the case had been sent for trial.

(3.) The bail of the petitioner-accused was pressed primarily on the ground that she is aged about 65 years and with regard to the allegations of demand of down, no specific date and time had beenmentioned in the report lodged. The allegation in this regard being vague, it cannot be said that cruelty was committed to the deceased soon before her death and for that reason provisions of section 304-B I.P.C. could not be made applicable. These circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, warrant that the petitioner-accused be released on bail pending trial. In support of the stand taken reliance was placed on Raj Kumar v. Slate of Punjab, 1997 2 RCR(Cri) 652 ; Premavati v. State of Haryana, 1999 1 RCR(Cri) 284 ; Rajinder v. State of Haryana, 2000 2 RCR(Cri) 646 and KansRaj v. State of Punjab and others, 2000 2 RCR(Cri) 695.