Present: Ms.Monisha Lamba Advocate Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1156630
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-17-2014
AppellantPresent: Ms.Monisha Lamba Advocate
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
crm no.m-21840 of 2014 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh216crm no.m-21840 of 2014 date of decision:17.07.2014 barfi devi .....petitioner versus state of haryana .....respondent coram: hon'ble mr. justice mehinder singh sullar. present: ms.monisha lamba, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.satyawan rathee, deputy advocate general, haryana, for the respondent-state. mr.naveen s.bhardwaj, advocate, for the complainant. **** mehinder singh sullar , j.(oral) petitioner-barfi devi(mother-in-law) widow of mohan lal, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against her along with her son and main co-accused narinder, husband of complainant-maya devi, vide fir no.262 dated 23.03.2014, for the commission of offences punishable under sections 323, 498-a, 406, 506 and 34 ipc, by the police of police station civil lines, district karnal.2. notice of the petition was issued to the state.3. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail rani seema 2014.07.18 15:54 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh crm no.m-21840 of 2014 2 deserves to be accepted in this context.4. during the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this court on july 03, 2014:- “learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the marriage of son of the petitioner was solemnized with the complainant maya devi, as back as on 13.12.1996 and she(petitioner) who is her mother-in-law, has been falsely implicated in the present case, after 18 years of the marriage, in order to wreak vengeance. the argument is that otherwise also very vague and general allegations of cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry are assigned and indicated offences are not made out against her. heard. notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 17.07.2014. meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. in the event of her arrest, the arresting officer would admit her to bail on her furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of `25,000/- to his satisfaction.”. 5. at the very outset, on instructions from asi ranbir singh, learned state counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. she is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. there is no history of her previous involvement in any other criminal case. moreover, all the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the court of magistrate. all the main allegations of cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry are assigned to her son & main accused narinder(non-petitioner)(husband of the complainant). neither any specific role nor overt-act is attributed to the present petitioner in this regard. even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report(challan) against the accused, so, the conclusion of trial will rani seema 2014.07.18 15:54 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh crm no.m-21840 of 2014 3 naturally take a long time.6. in the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts & 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, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. the interim bail already granted to the petitioner by virtue of indicated order by this court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under section 438(2) cr.p.c. needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits in the trial of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail. at the same time, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of her bail in this court. july 17, 2014 (mehinder singh sullar) seema judge rani seema 2014.07.18 15:54 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh
Judgment:

CRM No.M-21840 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH216CRM No.M-21840 of 2014 Date of Decision:17.07.2014 Barfi Devi .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Ms.Monisha Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Satyawan Rathee, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. Mr.Naveen S.Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the complainant. **** MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) Petitioner-Barfi Devi(mother-in-law) widow of Mohan Lal, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against her along with her son and main co-accused Narinder, husband of complainant-Maya Devi, vide FIR No.262 dated 23.03.2014, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A, 406, 506 and 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Civil Lines, District Karnal.

2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for anticipatory bail Rani Seema 2014.07.18 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-21840 of 2014 2 deserves to be accepted in this context.

4. During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on July 03, 2014:- “Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that the marriage of son of the petitioner was solemnized with the complainant Maya Devi, as back as on 13.12.1996 and she(petitioner) who is her mother-in-law, has been falsely implicated in the present case, after 18 years of the marriage, in order to wreak vengeance. The argument is that otherwise also very vague and general allegations of cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry are assigned and indicated offences are not made out against her. Heard. Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 17.07.2014. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of her arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit her to bail on her furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of `25,000/- to his satisfaction.”. 5. At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Ranbir Singh, learned State Counsel has acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation. She is no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. There is no history of her previous involvement in any other criminal case. Moreover, all the offences alleged against the accused are triable by the Court of Magistrate. All the main allegations of cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry are assigned to her son & main accused Narinder(non-petitioner)(husband of the complainant). Neither any specific role nor overt-act is attributed to the present petitioner in this regard. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report(challan) against the accused, so, the conclusion of trial will Rani Seema 2014.07.18 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM No.M-21840 of 2014 3 naturally take a long time.

6. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts & 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, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner by virtue of indicated order by this Court, is hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits in the trial of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail. At the same time, in case, the petitioner does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of her bail in this Court. July 17, 2014 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Rani Seema 2014.07.18 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh