GIANENDER KUMARI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is Cr1. Misc. No. 31386-M of 1998 where Smt. Gianender Kumari (Petitioner herein) is claiming anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 393 dated 7-10-1998 under Sections 304-B/498-A/406/201.1PC of PS Old Faridabad.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that Lata Rani was married to Harish Bhardwaj on 22-11-1996 by her father Duli Chand Sharma. He spent Rs. 6 lacs on the marriage on the suggestion of his brother-in-law Sat Parkash Vashishth who is in Delhi Police. After 6 months of marriage, there was demand for Rs. 1.50 lacs from the family of his son-in-law Harish Bhardwaj. He was unable to fulfil this demand. After he had expressed his inability to fulfil this demand they began ill-treating his daughter. They began treating her with cruelty. Demand for Rs. 1.50 lacs persisted even after Lata conceived. Lata used to weep before his wife but without disclosing anything as his wife was suffering from pain in the chest and the doctors had advised that she should not be told anything, which might affect her heart and precipitate heart attack. His daughter kept tolerating the cruelty being inflicted on her silently. When the pitch of cruelty reached the peak and became intolerable she informed him on telephone that a sum of Rs. 1.50 lacs had to be paid. He took Rs. 50,000/- on interest through his brother-in-law and gave the amount to them. He felt sorry for his inability to arrange the remaining amount of Rs. 1 lac. They were not satisfied. They told him to take back motorcycle, which was given in marriage and to give them Maruti car. He kept putting them off on one excuse or the other. It was in his mind that if his daughter was blessed with a male child, heT would fulfil their demand. But those tyrants did not stop treating her with cruelty. On 27-11-1997, they took Lata to Guru Teg Bahadur Govt. Hospital. Shahadra for delivery and informed him (Duli Chand Sharma). They went to Guru Teg Bahadur Govt. Hospital, Shahadra for looking after her. Lata gave birth to a male child on 11-12-1997 through cesarean operation. She was discharged along with the child in good health. They took Lata and child to their house on the third day i.e. 13-12-1997 at about 1 p.m. Lata was killed by them. They informed him at about 12 noon on telephone to reach the hospital but there was nobody in the hospital. Then they reached their house at Ashok Nagar, Delhi where Lata was lying dead. None was present near the dead body. His wife became unconscious on seeing, Lata dead. He called his brother-in-law Sat Parkash. His wife regained consciousness. His wife could not bear the shock. She got pain in her chest. He wanted that post mortem examination of the dead body should take place but he was pressured through his brother-in-law Sat Parkash not to have the dead body subjected to post mortem. He inquired about the cause of death of his daughter but each member of the family was giving a different cause of her death. He became suspicious about the cause of her death and felt that herTs was an unnatural death and he maintained that he would get the dead body subjected to post mortem examination. In the meantime, the condition of his wife became serious. He became busy in getting his wife checked up by a doctor. They took benefit of his being busy and they took the dead body in a four wheeler to Nigam Bodh Ghat and cremated it. His son-in-laws brother Ashwani Bhardwaj told him that if he was suspicious about the death of his daughter, they would be liable. He further told him that he should not have the dead body subjected to post mortem examination as he had joined politics recently and his career would be ruined. He was getting his wife treated in Sun flag, Escort and Apollo Hospitals. Doctors at Apollo Hospital expressed no hope of her recovery. Besides, the family of his son-in-law is also creating problems for him. He lost his eyesight on account of continuous weeping due to the shock of his daughterTs death. He underwent eye surgery. He made application to Superintendent of Police, Faridabad giving reasons why he was feeling suspicious about the death of his daughter and laying the blame for the death of his daughter on his son-in-law Harish Bhardwaj, his brother Ashwani Bhardwaj, mother Gianender Kumari, sister-in-law Jyoti, sister Sunita and brother-in-law Mangat Ram, brother Sanjay Bhardwaj and sister-in-law Anju. Case was registered on 7-10-1998 at, P5 Old Faridabad under Sections 304-B/498-A/406/201 IPC.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that jewellery was returned to Duli Chand Sharma by Harish Bhardwaj on 6-6-1998 vide receipt Annexure P1. Other dowry articles were returned to him vide receipt Annexure P2. It was further submitted that Ashwani Kumar who is her husbandTs brother was allowed bail by Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 3-11-1998 vide Annexure P3. Harish Bhardwaj was allowed bail by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide Annexure P4 dated 10-11-1998. Her husbands brother Sunils wife Jyoti, and Anju wife of Ashwani Kumar, Mangat Ram and Smt. Sunita were allowed bail by Sessions Judge Faridabad vide order Annexure AS, dated 31-10-1998. So much so, Sunil Anju and Smt. Jyoti, Mangat Ram and Sunita were allowed anticipatory bail. It was further submitted that Duli Chand Sharma offered his younger daughter in marriage to Harish Bhardwaj and the offer was not accepted by him and other members of the family, Refusal to accept younger daughter of Duli Chand Sharma in marriage to Harish Bhardwaj kindled flame of revenge in the mind of Duli Chand Sharma. It was further submitted that the petitioner is aged 62 years, a retired Govt. servant and a woman and if she is refused anticipatory bail, no useful purpose would be served by detaining her in custody when the entire articles of dowry have been handed over to Duli Chand Sharma and nothing remains to be recovered. It was submitted that the petitioner is suffering from Diabetes, Hypertension, Osteo-arthritis and Depression Neurosis In support of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to certificate Annexure P6. Harish Bhardwaj has remained in custody his brother has remained in custody. If any articles of dowry remain with them those could be recovered from them. Petitioner is a woman. She is in old age and appears to be in bad hearing. In the FIR details of the articles of dowry have not been given so that it could be known what articles of dowry still remain to be recovered. As such it will be futile to deny anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is therefore, ordered that in the event of arrest, she will be admitted to bail by the Investigating Officer. She will however join the investigation and keep joining the investigation. If any articles of dowry are lying with her she shall hand over those articles of dowry to the Investigating Officer. Petition allowed.