RAJINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions are for anticipatory bail in connection with same F.I.R. and, therefore, they are heard and decided together. The complaint which resulted into lodging of the F.I.R. is given by Nona Oberoi. She was married to Sukhvinderjit Singh, petitioner in Cr1. Misc. 3067 -M of 1997. Rajinder Kaur, petitioner No. 1 in Crl. Misc. 2859 -M of 1997 is the mother of Sukhvinderjit Singh and mother -in -law of Nona Oberoi. Gurvinderjit Singh, petitioner in Crl. Misc. 2959 -M of 1997 is the brother of the husband of the complainant. Inderjit Singh, petitioner in Crl. Misc. 2859 -M of 1997 is the father of Sukhvinderjit Singh and father -in -law of Nona Oberoi.

(2.) AS per the complaint, the marriage took place on 22.9.1996 in the presence of many persons. The dowry articles were given by mother of the complainant. She thereafter went to Mohali along with, her husband and his relatives. The mother -in -law of the complainant then made demand for dowry and started taunting for the same. It is contended that the demand persisted and ultimately her jewellery was also taken by her husband. She was taken out by force in the car on 29.11.1996 and was left at her mother's house by throwing her out from the car. She further status that on 29.12.1996, her mother and brother -in -law went along with her to leave her at Mohali. At that time her in -laws questioned whether she had brought the car and only if she had bought it she could stay otherwise she could go back. They were abused and pushed away and feeling ashamed, they had to go back.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that anticipatory bail be granted while the learned counsel for the State and the complainant vehemently objected to the grant of anticipatory bail. Mr. Mittal relied on the averments made in Cr1. Misc. No. 6552 of 1997 in Crl. Misc. 2959 -N of 1997 given by the complainant for concellation of interim anticipatory bail. It is contended by the complainant therein that on the directions of this Court, the husband of the complainant was to take her to Sector 17 immediately after the court proceedings on the verbal directions of this Court so that the basis for the settlement could be laid even before the complainant was to accompany her husband to his separate residence on 13.4.1997. Immediately, thereafter coming down from the Court, the complainant's husband told the learned counsel for the complainant that he would not drop the complainant back to her home and that her cousin or her brother -in -law should pick her up from Sector 17. On that, the Senior counsel told the complainants husband that taking out a girl should be done in a graceful manner and that as a husband he should drop her at her parents house. That elderly advice was accepted by the complainant's husband and then the complainant accompained her husband for going to Sector 17. But, before the complainant's husband could start off on his scooter in the parking of the High Court, his brother came running after and told the husband of the complainant that she should be dumped wherever she is taken and she should preferably be thrown in the lake. The complainant sat on the pillion of her husband scooter who drove it to the lake instead of going to Sector 17, Chandigarh. The complainant controlled her fear and they went on the bank of the lake. There, the complainant's husband told her in a very unpalatable language that he had offered to live with her only for the purpose of securing his bail from the Court and that the complainant should sign papers for a mutual divorce. He further threatened the complainant that even if the Court forces him to take her to a separate residence, he will make her life miserable.