TARSEEMA CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure moved by the accused -petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the accused) for grant of bail to her in case FIR No. 50/2001 dated 9.4.2001 under Sections 313/498 -A, 354/120 -B/34/344/193 IPC and Section 7 of the MTP Act on the grounds that she is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case and that there is no direct or indirect evidence indicating her involvement in the commission of any of the offences but she has been arrested merely for being harmed, harassed and humiliated in a dispute which is the outcome of the strained relations between one Raksha Kumari and her in -laws. It is also claimed that presently she is under treatment in I.G.M.C. and Hospital, Shimla since 18.4.2001 and is under judicial custody and is no more required for the purpose of investigation.

(2.) Case of the prosecution against the accused is that Raksha Devi was married to Manohar Lal resident of Village Ladha in the month of February, 2000. After about a month of the marriage her husband and in -laws started treating her with cruelty and her father -in -law Roshan Lal had also been outraging her modesty even in the presence of his wife Satya Devi. Accused Roshan Lai had been compelling Raksha Devi to sign writings forcibly and under threat presumably with a view to create evidence against their cruel treatment met out to Raksha Devi. On 14.3.2001 accused Manohar Lal beat her up and asked her to bring a sum of Rs. 5,000 from her parents for treatment of his father. Thereafter on 22.3.2001 accused Roshan Lal and Satya Devi took Raksha Devi to a Hospital at Bharari under the pretext that she was required to be medically checked up. She was then taken to Om Clinic at Bad -da -ghat. In the said Clinic the accused Tarseema Chaudhary (petitioner herein) injected some medicine into the person of Raksha Devi whereby she became unconscious and on regaining consciousness she found that her three months pregnancy had been terminated. Thereafter she was taken back to her matrimonial house and was kept confined in a room for 4 or 5 days and was not permitted to meet any one including her brother who had visited the place and was told that Raksha Devi was not in the house. On 8.4.2001 accused Roshan Lal and Satya Devi told Raksha Devi that she would be taken to a Court at Ghumarwin on the next day for making a statement. Raksha Devi realising some foul play slipped away and went to the house of her maternal Uncle Dev Raj and on 9.4.2001 FIR based on the aforesaid facts was lodged at Police Station Bharari. According to the prosecution, the investigation so far carried out prima facie reveal that the accused persons had committed the offences alleged to have been committed by them.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused and the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State and have also gone through the records.