KUMAR GAURAV Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sequel to order dtd. 22/7/2022, whereby bail petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail, in the event of arrest in FIR No. 121, dtd. 11/9/2021 under Ss. 306 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Barotiwala, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, respondent has filed status report and the Investigating Officer has come present with record. Record perused and returned.

(2.) Close scrutiny of record reveals that the complainant Ajay alleged that the marriage of his daughter Purnima was solemnized with present bail petitioner, who belongs to Bihar, on 10/7/2016. He alleged that since 2018, his daughter and present bail petitioner (his son-in-law) were residing at Barotiwala, District Solan. He alleged that subsequently, younger brother of present bail petitioner also came to Barotiwala and started living in the house of his deceased daughter Purnima. He alleged that on 10th August, Saurav and Priti brother and sister of present bail petitioner went back to Bihar, however, on 14/8/2021, his son-in-law (present bail petitioner) got his daughter Purnima admitted to hospital at Barotiwala, wherein it transpired that on 13/8/2021 Purnima had consumed 90 tablets Amludipine. Since, condition of the daughter of complainant became serious, she was referred to Government Medical College Chandigarh, where unfortunately she expired on 22/8/2021. Complainant alleged that on 24/8/2021 when he went to house of his daughter at Barotiwala, it transpired that present bail petitioner alongwith his brother Saurav, after having collected gold ornaments of his daughter and her laptop had already left for Bihar. He further alleged that subsequently, he came to know from person namely Bharat, who is friend of brother-in-law of his deceased daughter that the deceased was being tortured and mentally harassed by her husband (present bail petitioner) and other family members.

(3.) While fairly admitting factum with regard to joining of investigation by bail petitioner in terms of order dtd. 22/7/2022, Mr. Narinder Guleria, learned Additional Advocate General submits that though nothing remains to be recovered from bail petitioner but keeping in view gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve leniency and his prayer for bail deserves outright rejection. Mr. Guleria further submits that since petitioner hails from Bihar, it may not be in the interests of justice to enlarge him on bail, because in that event he may not only flee from justice but may also tamper with prosecution evidence.