KRISHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS -Krishan Kumar Verma son of Ram Chander Verma and his wife Amarjeet Kaur, unfortunate parents -in -law of complainant Sonu Verma, have preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them along with their son Rewat Verma (husband and main accused), vide FIR No. 105 dated 03.03.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 498 -A and 406 IPC, by the police of Police Station Civil Lines, District Rohtak, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this context.During the course of preliminary hearing, a Co -ordinate Bench of this Court (Paramjeet Singh, J.), has passed the following order on April 12, 2013: -

(3.) AT the very outset, on the instructions from SI Leela Ram, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. Very vague and general allegations of cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry, are assigned to them. In that eventuality, whether indicated offences are made out against them (petitioners), would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court, in view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others, : AIR 2000 SC 2324(1) and Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another, : 2010(7) SCC 667, as no other legally required specific role or overt -act is attributed to them.