Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt.Sharda Rani vs State Of Haryana on 4 July, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No. M-17391 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.No. M-17391 of 2012
Date of Decision:- 4.7.2012
Smt.Sharda Rani ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.Sandeep K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Sameer Singh, A.A.G., Haryana.
Mr.Nishant Raj, Advocate for the complainant.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
Petitioner Smt.Sharda Rani wife of Vijender Gupta, has directed the instant application for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against her alongwith her other co-accused and sons Nishu Gupta (husband), Navneet Gupta, brother-in-law (Jeth) and Shaweta Gupta, sister-in-law (Jethani) of complainant Shailey Gupta, by means of FIR No.1021 dated 29.11.2011, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 406, 498-A and 506 IPC by the police of Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC.
2. Concisely, the prosecution case is that the 2nd marriage of the complainant was solemnized with main accused Nishu Gupta on 22.11.2010 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Faridabad. Sufficient amount of Rs.21 lacs was stated to have been spent on the engagement and marriage ceremonies of the parties. Her parents gave adequate dowry to her husband and his other relatives beyond their capacity, but the accused were not satisfied. They demanded more dowry articles and cash.
3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant claimed that her husband and his other relatives CRM No. M-17391 of 2012 -2- have misappropriated and demanded more dowry articles & cash. They taunted and treated her with cruelty for and in connection with the demand of dowry. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused in the manner depicted here-in- above.
4. Notice of the application was issued to the State.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present application deserves to be accepted in this respect.
6. As is evident from the record, that initially, a criminal case was registered against main accused Nishu Gupta (husband), Navneet Gupta (brother- in- law), Shaweta Gupta (sister-in-law) and petitioner Sharda Rani (mother-in- law) of the complainant. The main accused and husband of the complainant was arrested, interrogated and ultimately, he was allowed bail, vide order dated 6.12.2011 by the Magistrate, whereas other co-accused Navneet Gupta and Shaweta Gupta were allowed anticipatory bail in this case. General, vague and similar allegations are attributed to the petitioner, which were also attributed to her co-accused Navneet Gupta and Shaweta Gupta, who have already been allowed the concession of anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge. Therefore, I see no ground not to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner under the same set of circumstances. She is aged lady and mother-in-law of the complainant. To me, since main accused Navneet Gupta and Shaweta Gupta have already been arrested and allowed bail, so, no useful purpose would be served in sending the petitioner to police custody.
7. Moreover, during the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed on 4.6.2012:-
"Learned counsel, inter-alia, contended that the petitioner is mother-in- law of the complainant and no specific role/overt-act is attributed to her.CRM No. M-17391 of 2012 -3-
Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 04.07.2012. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next of hearing. In the event of arrest of the petitioner, the Arresting Officer would admit her to bail on her furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to his satisfaction."
8. At this stage, the learned State counsel, on the instructions of Investigating Officer, has stated that petitioner has already joined the investigation. She is no longer required for further interrogation.
9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in- above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, the instant application for anticipatory bail is accepted.
10. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of her arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) she shall make herself available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) she shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and (iii) she will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.
11. Needless to state that in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution/complainant would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of her bail, in this relevant connection.
4.7.2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge