SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no.170 dated 10.12.2011, under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC, registered at police station Sadar Rewari. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari dismissing bail application filed by the petitioners.

(2.) BRIEF allegations are that, marriage of complainant was performed with Vikas son of present petitioners on 11.12.2010. Sufficient articles were given in dowry. However, petitioners and other family members including husband of complainant were not satisfied with the same. They used to harass her on account of dowry. In order to fulfill the demand of petitioners, father of complainant gave a Maruti Alto K -10 car and Rs.1,11,111/ - in cash at the time of marriage. There are specific allegations that after one month of the marriage, merciless beatings were given to her by petitioners and their son and she was forced to bring Rs.2,00,000/ - from her parents. Parents of complainant convened a Panchayat and matter was resolved. However, after few days, again demand of Rs.2,00,000/ - was revived. There are specific allegations that on 05.04.2011, petitioners and other accused gave her merciless beatings for bringing Rs.2,00,000/ -. Father of complainant again convened a Panchayat and gave Rs.1,20,000/ - in cash to her in -laws. However, harassment continued. She was turned out of the matrimonial home on 25.04.2011 by petitioners and other family members after giving her beatings and she was directed to bring Rs.2,00,000/ -. She was again taken to the matrimonial home by her parents. Petitioners also sold the car given to them by parents of the complainant. On 05.12.2011 she was thrown out of the matrimonial home by giving her merciless beatings.

(3.) HENCE , in view of the aforementioned facts, it is not such a case in which extra -ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners -accused. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by Satish Kumar and Rajbala is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit. Interim order dated 10.01.2012 already granted in favour of petitioners stands vacated.