ANIL RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioners filed the present petition seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 and 34 IPC.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the case in this Court on 9.12.2008, it was stated by learned counsel for the State on instructions that Vidya Devi (petitioner No.3)-mother-in-law of the complainant, Avinash Rajput (petitioner No.4)-elder brother of the husband of the complainant and Mithlesh (petitioner No.6)-sister of the husband of complainant were found innocent. Insofar as Anil Rajput (petitioner No.1)-husband of the complainant, Data Ram (petitioner No.2)-father-in-law of the complainant and Amar Singh (petitioner No.5)- brother-in-law of the petitioner No.1 were concerned it was submitted that though they had joined investigation but some recoveries were yet to be effected. On 3.3.2009, when the case Cr. Misc. No. M-26900 of 2008 was again taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that furniture and other articles of the complainant were lying at Kanpur and it was difficult for them to bring them from there. In view of the same he had brought two demand drafts of Rs.24,000/- and Rs.26,000/- i.e. total Rs.50,000/- payable to the complainant. There was dispute regarding gold and silver items which were yet to be recovered. Besides, it was submitted that one Pulsar motorcycle bearing No.UP-75-0571 was also to be recovered.