PREM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 26-11-1992 Neelam aged about 22 years was married to Sushil Kumar. She died on 19-9-1996. It is alleged that the marriage was solemnised with great pomp and show and many dowry articles were given. After the marriage Neelam was harassed. She was tortured by respondents 2 to 4 and others. She had come to her parental house and told that there was a demand of Pearl Yamaha Motor Cycle. Rs. 20,000/- were given to Sushil Kumar husband of the deceased. For some time the things were settled but thereafter Neelam was again being harassed and tortured. Burning cigarettes were rubbed on her body. At times she was forced to take wine. Respondents 2 to 4 and others started making demands for dowry. The said demands were met from time to time as per the capacity of the parents of Neelam. For a period of for about one year before her death, a new demand of Maruti car was being raised. Parents of Neelam were showing their helplessness to provide a Maruti Car. Three months before her death, the brotherof the deceased had brought her to Delhi But Tej Bhan respondent came to Delhi and promised that she will not be maltreated. She went back to live with her husband. The brother of the deceased talked to her on the telephone. This conversation took place about two days earlier before her death. The deceased started crying on the telephone and told her brother that she should be taken back to Delhi otherwise she would be killed. He brother told her that her father-in-law had assured that she would be looked after properly but the deceased replied that even he had been torturing her. She informed him that they all were saying "bring car otherwise you would be killed". It was complained that she had been murdered.

(2.) Respondent No. 2 Tej Bhan and respondent No. 3 Smt. Sanno Devi are father-in-law and mother-in-law while respondent No. 4 Ajay Kumar is the brother of the husband of the deceased.

(3.) All the respondents 2 to 4 were seeking bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge. Narnaul admitted them to bail basically on the grounds that deceased was living separately from the respondents and further that in the post-mortem report no cause of death has been given. It has also been mentioned that deceased had lefta three years old child and there is no body to look after him. On these broad facts, the order admitting respondents 2 to 4 to bail was passed.