Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maya Devi And Others vs State Of Haryana on 10 May, 2012
Crl. Misc. No.M-144 of 2012 1
..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-144 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : May 10th , 2012
Maya Devi and others
.... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana,
for the State.
Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate,
for the complainant.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Maya Devi, Krishan Kumar and Vinay Sharma seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 193 dated 2.11.2005 at Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani for an offence punishable under sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case was got registered by Mithlesh Kumari, the complainant against the petitioners as well as other members of the family. According to him, Crl. Misc. No.M-144 of 2012 2 ..
some of the accused got anticipatory bail while in respect of some, the FIR was quashed. He has submitted that the complainant had also implicated Jagan Nath and Chander Kala, her grandparents-in-law. According to him, they have now expired and the property of the family is still in their names. According to him, the parents-in-law and brother-in- law of the complainant are before the court. He has further submitted that some of the property, which was in the name of Jagan Nath and Chander Kala in the area of district Bhiwani has been acquired and compensation is also payable to them.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the complainant never resided at Nepal. According to him, the petitioners though originally belonged to Bhiwani, yet are citizens of Nepal and for the last 40 years they are residing at Nepal and have never exercised their right of vote in India. He has further submitted that even after the marriage, Mithlesh Kumari , the complainant and her husband Alok Kumar stayed in Bhiwani. He has submitted that there is nothing serious against the petitioners and they are entitled to bail.
Learned State counsel has submitted that the conduct of the petitioners is such which itself dis-entitles the petitioners to pre-arrest bail.
Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted, on the other hand, that the petitioners, who are originally residents of Bhiwani have been living in Nepal in connection with their business. He has further submitted that they have dual citizenship. According to him, they have ancestral property and house in the area of district Bhiwani. He has further submitted that marriage between Mithilesh Kumari and Alok Crl. Misc. No.M-144 of 2012 3 ..
Kumar took place on 2.12.1999 and after staying for 10-15 days at Bhiwani, the entire family shifted to Nepal. According to him, the wife stayed at Nepal for a short duration and then was left at Bhiwani for two years. According to him, the parental family of the complainant was given the responsibility to arrange some work for her husband. He has submitted that the business that was arranged for Alok Kumar did not flourish and in year 2004, leaving the complainant at Bhiwani, he left for Nepal.
Learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that petitioner No.1, Maya Devi was arrested in Calcutta and was granted interim bail upto to 29.01.2010 to appear before the trial court. According to him, despite the directions of the Calcutta court, she did not appear before the Bhiwani court. He has further submitted that petitioners No. 1 and 2, however, applied for anticipatory bail before the court at Bhiwani on 22.4.2010 in which interim protection was granted. He has further submitted that for the reason that the petitioners did not join the investigation, the petition was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide orders dated 7.5.2010. According to him, thereafter even the petitioners did not apply to this court for anticipatory bail and went to Nepal. According to him, on 8.1.2011, Alok Kumar, the husband of the complainant was arrested from district Araria (Bihar) and on that occasion, he made a statement to the effect that the dowry articles and jewellery is with petitioner No.1, Maya Devi and the same is yet to be recovered. The bail application of Alok Kumar was dismissed on 24.1.2011. According to him, on 22.7.2011, the court of a Magistrate at Bhiwani passed orders of attachment of the properties of Chander Kala Crl. Misc. No.M-144 of 2012 4 ..
and Jagan Nath located in Bhiwani. The petitioners have also been declared proclaimed offenders. On attachment of the property, Chander Kala, who was alive at that time, surrendered before the trial court and was granted interim bail subject to the condition of production of other accused. On the very next day, second application for anticipatory bail was filed by the petitioners, which was dismissed. By this time, Jagan Nath had also died. On grant of interim bail to Chander Kala, the petitioners got the compensation in respect of their property released by submitting a false affidavit. Regarding this incident, a complaint was made on 6.1.2012 and Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani has already directed an enquiry into the matter. The petitioners are stated to be planning to sell their property.
As has been generally said, pre-arrest bail is a discretionary relief. The question is as to whether this discretion could be exercised in favour of the petitioners who are playing hide and seek with the courts. Maya Devi was directed by the Calcutta court to appear before the court at Bhiwani. She failed to appear. Petitioners No.1 and 2 filed an application for anticipatory bail before the court of Session at Bhiwani and they did not join the investigation. For the reasons mentioned in the order dated 7.5.2010, their application was dismissed. When Chander Kala on learning about the attachment orders surrendered before the court, she was granted the interim relief subject to the condition of production of other accused and on the very next day, the petitioners moved an application for anticipatory bail, which was again dismissed. Now they are trying to sell the property of the family situated in the area of Bhiwani district so as to make themselves scare in the area of the Crl. Misc. No.M-144 of 2012 5 ..
court exercising jurisdiction over the matter.
For all these reasons, the petitioners do not appear to be entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. The petition is, consequently, dismissed.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE May 10th , 2012 som