PUSHPA KASHYAP Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these applications (Cr.M. Nos. 8269-M and 9182-M of 1999) for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arise from the same F.I.R. i.e. F.I.R. No. 166 dated 11.10.1998 registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 120-B I.P.C. This F.I.R. was registered on the statement of Man Chand Katoch regarding the death of his daughter Anita and the allegations therein are as follows :-

(2.) ANITA was married on 19.7.1998 with Deepak Kashyap and she had gone to her marital home. On 14.8.1999, since according to their custom, it was a black month, Anita was left at her parental home by her brother-in-law Pardeep Kumar (Ist petitioner in Cr.M. 9182-M/99). Since Anita was found to be mentally disturbed, she was asked about it and she informed that her mother-in-law Pushpa Kashyap (petitioner in Cr. M. 8269-M/99), her husband Deepak Kashyap and her brothers-in-law Pardeep Kumar and Vinod Kumar (Petitioners in Cr.M. 9182-M/99) are all demanding a new car and jewellery and that whenever her sisters-in-law namely, Madhu Chandel and Indu Sharma came to her marital home along with their respective husbands, they made sarcastic remarks that she had come from a starved family, that she had brought less dowry and that a new car should come from her parents. Anita stayed at her parental home for about a month, but nobody came from her marital home to see her.

(3.) ON the basis of these allegations, the F.I.R. came to be registered. The petitioners approached the Sessions Court, Chandigarh for bail, but their applications were dismissed. Therefore, they have approached this Court.