URESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Offence alleged is under sections 498-A/406/34 IPC. Case of the prosecution is that Babita was married to Vinod Kumar on 14.11.2003. She was harassed for dowry and was turned out of the matrimonial home. She lodged FIR on 19.1.2006. 2. It is not shown that the petitioners have, in any manner, taken steps to rehabilitate Babita financially or otherwise. Counsel for the complainant says that Babita was willing to join matrimonial home or for any other reasonable settlement, but the petitioners have not shown any keenness.

(3.) Counsel for the State points out that all the petitioners have been declared Proclaimed Offenders and are absconding. In view of above, without expressing any opinion on merits, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to Suresh Kumar and Pasato Devi petitioners, who are parents in law of Babita.. As regards the case of Satish Kumar, it is submitted that he is brother of the husband, Vinod Kumar and he is not directly responsible for rehabilitating the complainant and he will join investigation and assist the investigating agency in tracing out the co-accused. Without expressing any final opinion on merits, Satish Kumar petitioner is granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of investigation or three months whichever is later during which the petitioner will be free to apply for regular bail to the concerned court in accordance with law.