SAMEY SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER 's Counsel submits that deceased Sushila was married to respondent No. 2 on April 30, 1993. In the marriage sufficient dowry articles were given, but still respondent No. 2, who is the husband of deceased Sushila, his parents, brother and sister were not satisfied with the dowry. They demanded Rs. 50,000/-more. As this money could not be arranged, they tortured Sushila and beat her. Whenever she went to her parental house, she made a complaint that because of non-payment of Rs. 50,000/- she was being tortured and was threatened to be eliminated. She apprehended that some day she would be killed by these persons. Her parents always pacified her and sent her back to her matrimonial home. They tried to pacify all the accused persons also but they continuously pressed their demand for payment of Rs. 50,000/and continued torturing her. Ten /fifteen days before her death, when she came to her parental home she again made the same complaint and refused to go back to her husband. When respondent No. 2 came to take her back, the complainant, her father, refused to send her back, saying that he was harassing and beating her because on non-payment of Rs. 50,000/ -. At that time, respondent No. 2 told the complainant that he should immediately arrange for the money and thereafter he would neither harass Sushila nor give her beating. On December 11, 1994 the complainant received the information of the death of Sushila. He alongwith certain other villagers reached village Hodal and found his daughter lying dead in the matrimonial home. As per this report, she had certain injuries on her body. They protested that it was not a case of suicide but rather a case of murder. Despite this the, complainantandhis co-villagers were made to sit in a room and the accused persons cremated the body forcibly without getting the post-mortem done. Petitioner's Counsel submits that thereafter the complainant made an attempt to lodge a report at Hodal but it was not recorded and, therefore, on December 14, 1994 he submitted an application to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palwal, whereupon this case was registered.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , respondent No. 2 is a Police Constable. After the registration of the case, he moved the Sessions Court for granting him anticipatory bail. Interim anticipatory bail was granted to him immediately till January 10,1995. Thereafter he filed a certificate before the Sessions Court saying that on December 11,1994, till 4 p. m. he was on his duty at Madhuban. Considering this document, the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, allowed his petition for anticipatory bail on January 11,1995 holding in the last para that "keeping in view the facts and totality of the circumstances particularly applicant was net present in the village as he was at the place of posting, Investigating Officer/arresting Officer is directed to release the applicant on bail to his own satisfaction, in the event of his arrest. "

(3.) LEARNED Assistant Advocate-General, Haryana, placed the case diary before me. He submitted that the investigation is over. Challan is already presented in the Court.