OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of the above mentioned petitions filed by Om Parkash, Shakuntla and Madan, petitioners-accused for seeking bail in case bearing FIR No. 427 dated 20.12.2001 registered under Sections 304-B, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station, Model Town, Panipat.

(2.) PRESENT case came to be registered on the statement of Ram Niwas, complainant resident of Geeta Colony, Safidon. His sister Sushila was married with Sushil son of Om Parkash Mahajan, resident of Agarsain Colony, Panipat on 29.10.2001. Dowry articles were given to his sister according to the financial capacity of the complainant. After a week of the marriage, Sushila visited the house of the complainant and informed them that Om Parkash, father-in-law, Shakuntla, mother-in-law, Madan, brother-in-law and Bharti, sister-in-law (Jethani) had taunted her on account of insufficiency of dowry and further complained to her that car and cash had not been given in her marriage by her brothers. Her brothers persuaded her to return to the matrimonial home four days thereafter. Om Parkash, Shakuntla, Madan and Bharti repeatedly kept on making demand of Rs. 2 lacs and a car on telephone from the complainant. The complainant had assured them that as and when they would be able to arrange for the money, their demand would be met by them. Harassment of Sushila continued at the hands of the above mentioned accused. On 20.12.2001 at about 8.30 a.m. telephonic information was received by the complainant at his house to the effect that Sushila had consumed poison. On getting this information, the complaint along with his family members reached at the house of her in-laws and found her dead. After making enquiries they came to know that Sushila had committed suicide by consuming poison because of the harassment faced by her at the hands of the above stated accused regarding her inability to meet the demand made by them. It had also transpired during the investigation that Sushil husband of Sushila also consumed poison but he was saved by timely medical aid given to him. I have heard counsel for the parties at length.

(3.) COUNSEL representing Madan, petitioner-accused stated that the allegations levelled in the report and the challan presented in Court against the petitioner are general in nature as no specific circumstances of demand of dowry had been attributed to the petitioner and the Police had not taken due notice of the fact that Madan, petitioner along with his wife, had been living separately from Sushila and her husband and were maintaining separate kitchen and thus they had no occasion to meddle in their life at all and they have been roped into this case being the close relations of the husband of the deceased. To support the stand taken reference was made to the fact that wife of the petitioner was also named in the report but after investigation, the Police had found her innocent which falsified the genuineness of the version given by the complainant in the report made.