RAMA SOOD Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions have been heard and are being decided together, as these arise out of the same FIR and involved identical question of facts and law.

(2.) Petitioners have prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 9 of 2023 dtd. 13/4/2023, registered under Ss. 498A, 504 and 34 IPC at Mahila Police Station, BCS, District Shimla, H.P. on the complaint dtd. 13/4/2023, made by one Archna Sharma. She has alleged that her marriage was solemnized with Sumit Sood on 26/4/2021. Petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 1090 of 2023 is the father of Sumit Sood, petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 1089 of 2023 is the mother and petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 1091 of 2023 is the sister of Sumit Sood. It is alleged in the complaint that just three days after the marriage, the husband of complainant had started beating complainant for the purpose of forcing her to use contraceptive. Since October, 2022, he had started manhandling the complainant for the demand of car and dowry. Against her mother-in-law, the complainant has alleged that she had always insisted that complainant would not be allowed to bear child for two years. Allegations of misbehave, demand of dowry have been made against the petitioners, besides husband of complainant.

(3.) Petitioners have contended that the allegations leveled by complainant are totally false. The complainant already has approached the Court with a complaint under the Protection of Women for Domestic Violence Act against them. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been joining investigation as and when required to do so. No recovery is to be effected from them. Petitioners are permanent resident of Panchwati Building, 2nd Floor, Shiv Puri, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. and there is no apprehension or likelihood of their absconding from the course of justice. Petitioners have undertaken to join investigation in future also, if so required.