NEERAJ KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought regular bail in FIR No. 88 of 2015 registered at Police Station, Baijnath, on 15.6.2015 under Sections 498 -A, 306 read with Section 34 IPC.

(2.) THE story of the prosecution as emerges from the record is that the complainant Jeevan Ram has one son Suresh Kumar and three daughters, the eldest daughter Kaushalya Devi and youngest daughter Salochna Kumari. All the daughters are married. His younger daughter Salochna Devi had court marriage by her own choice with the bail petitioner on 11.3.2008 which is inter caste marriage. After one month of their marriage accused Neeraj Kumar (husband), Ram Saran (father -in -law) and Judhi Devi (mother -in -law) of Salochna Devi started taunting her on small matters that she does not know work and why she had come to their house, there is nothing for her in their house and she had not brought sufficient dowry from her parents. Salochna used to tell her parents that accused persons used to beat her, abuse her and she was not given enough food, therefore, she and her children had to sleep hungry. She used to complaint that the accused did not talk to her properly and her husband used to drink every day and used to come at 11'o clock in the night. Thereafter he used to beat her and also did not allow her go to her parent's house. Salochna Devi had told the complainant that all the accused persons had taken away phone from her and had beaten her. Salochna had told complainant/father, her mother, brother and sisters that she does not want to live more and she want to die as she was fed up with her life. She had two children i.e. son aged 7 years and daughter 7 years. Daughter of complainant Salochna Devi ended her life due to ill -treatment given by accused as they used to beat her for dowry and did not use to give her food and clothing and on account of their bad behavior.

(3.) THE learned Additional Advocate General would argue that though apparently the case is an outcome of a matrimonial dispute, but the allegations against the petitioners are serious and therefore, they should not be ordered to be released on bail.