Santosh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner(s) For the Respondent : : Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate. Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.S.Rana, Assistant Advocate General. Mr. B.C.Negi, Advocate, for complainant. Kuldip Singh ,Judge( Oral). This judgment shall dispose of Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 408, 409, 410, 411 and 412 of 2012 filed by Santosh, Kusum,Balinder Singh, Suman and Ravinder respectively under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing them on bail in FIR No.135/2012 dated 18.04.2012, registered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, under Sections 306,309, 498-A, 34 IPC.

2. Accused Santosh, Kusum, Balinder Singh, Suman and Ravinder are mother-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband respectively of deceased Kumkum alias Priti. In the bail applications, it has been stated that petitioners have been falsely implicated. There was no demand of dowry or ill-treatment to deceased by petitioners. The petitioners are innocent. The petitioners are ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes 3 directions of the Court. The petitioners filed bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. which was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan on 10.05.2012. The submission has been made for releasing the petitioners on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

3. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that case has been registered on the complaint of Surender Singh submitted to the Incharge, Police Post, Majra. In the complaint, it has been stated that marriage of Kumkum alias Priti, daughter of the complainant, was performed with Ravinder on 05.05.2011. The complainant had paid `5 lakh in cash and spent `4 lakh on the marriage. The accused Kusum, Suman, sisters of Ravinder are living with Ravinder and their mother Santosh. The accused Balinder Singh, husband of Suman and another accused Hariom, husband of Kusum, are also living with Ravinder and their mother-in-law Santosh.

4. The complainant has stated that the accused were not happy with the money given by the complainant and the amounts spent by him on the marriage. After about 15 days, the accused gave beatings to the deceased and turned her out from the house. The deceased came to the complainant and narrated the incident to him. The complainant went to the house of his daughter's in-laws along with some persons. The accused demanded Santro Car and `1 lakh in cash. The complainant paid `50,000/- in cash and sent his daughter to her matrimonial home.

5. In January, 2012, the accused gave beatings to the deceased twice and demanded Santro Car. Accused Suman also stated that out of `1 lakh, only `50,000/- have been paid, she demanded balance 4 `50,000/-. The deceased was turned out from the house. On 20.03.2012, the complainant again went to the accused along with some others. The complainant told that he was not in a position to give Santro Car and `50,000/-. However, he would pay the same, if arranged in future. The complainant sent his daughter with Ravinder, Hariom and Balinder. He also gave `35,000/- for LCD and `25,000/- in the form of cash and clothes.

6. On 14.04.2012, the complainant received telephone and the accused demanded dowry and threatened that in absence of dowry, they would kill his daughter. On 16.04.2012, the complainant was told that his daughter was in hospital and in serious condition. They did not take her to hospital and when she died, then her body was taken to Lemon Hospital, Herbertpur, where the doctor declared her brought dead. The deceased was carrying pregancy of 2 ½ -3 months. On 16.04.2012, the complainant received another phone that his daughter was un- conscious.

7. The complainant reached Lemon Hospital at about 6.00 P.M. He came to know that his daughter had died. The 'Panchnama' was filled in by Herbertpur Police and post mortem was conducted on

17.04.2012 at Dehradoon. The body was cremated by complainant at his Village Pakhanpur, Police Station, Gangoh, District Sarahanpur, Utter Pradesh. In these circumstances, the complainant came to report the matter. The complainant suspected that all accused killed Kumkum alias Priti by poisoning. She was compelled to take the drastic step. The complainant requested for taking action against the accused. On this, case was registered. 5

8. It has been stated that during investigation two empty wrappers, one big, one small of Sulfas, one green colour and other white colour were taken into possession from the spot. The vomits were also lifted from the spot. Hariom was arrested on 22.04.2012. The other accused had gone underground. The accused had filed bail application which has been dismissed on 10.05.2012.

9. The post mortem on the body of deceased was conducted on 17.04.2012 at Dehradoon. The viscera of the deceased was obtained and sent for chemical examination along with Salfas wrappers and vomits. The report is awaited. The doctor has opined cause of death 'Shock leading to coma, leading to death', cause could not be ascertained, hence viscera kept for further report'. It has been stated that it has come in the investigation that the deceased was tortured by accused for bringing less dowry and, therefore, deceased ended her life by consuming some poisonous substance. Ravinder husband of the deceased in order to escape legal consequences also consumed some poisonous substance. The submission has been made for rejection of the bail applications.

10. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioners are innocent. They have committed no offence. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the marriage of deceased and Ravinder was solemnized on 05.05.2011 and deceased ended her life on 16.04.2012 in less than one year. The deceased was just 21 years. At the time of hearing no authenticated material has been pointed out to show that actually amounts were spent 6 by complainant on the marriage of his daughter and thereafter till

16.04.2012, as claimed by him. However, the complainant must have spent amount according to his capacity on the marriage of his daughter.

11. The question is regarding demand of dowry and ill- treatment at the hands of the accused to the deceased. The Investigating Agency till now has not collected any material that before 16.04.2012 any complaint was lodged by complainant or deceased or somebody at the instance of deceased to any lawful authority. On the contrary, it has come in the investigation that no complaint regarding matrimonial dispute of deceased was taken to the Panchayat where the deceased was residing after her marriage or to the Panchayat of the complainant. The payment of `35,000/- on 23.03.2012 to Ravinder for LCD is not tallying with the receipt of `28,000/- dated 11.03.2012 for purchasing Samsung LCD. The allegations against accused Santosh, Kusum, Balinder, Suman, at this stage, are general in nature. The fact cannot be ignored that deceased ended here life within one year of her marriage. In normal circumstance, a young woman is not expected to take drastic step to end her life. It is nobody's case at this stage, that deceased was suffering from some ailment. There is no explanation from husband Ravinder, at this stage, why deceased took the drastic step to end her life. The investigation is in progress.

12. In Siddhram Satlingappa Mhetre Versus State of Maharashtra and others (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- “112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: 7 (I) The nature and gravity of the accused and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences; (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her; (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people; (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because overimplication in the cases is matter of common knowledge and concern; (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be stuck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused. (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.”

13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, a balance is to be stuck between the liberty of the accused keeping in view the material collected by the Investigating Agency till now and the fact that the investigation is still in progress. In the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners Santosh, Kusum, Balinder Singh and Suman have made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., but accused Ravinder has failed to make out a case for grant of bail under Section 8 438 Cr.P.C.

14. Accordingly, Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 408, 409, 410, 411 of 2012 filed by Santosh, Kusum,Balinder Singh, Suman are allowed. The petitioners Santosh, Kusum,Balinder Singh, Suman in the event of arrest in FIR No.135/2012 dated 18.04.2012, registered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, under Sections 306,309, 498-A, 34 IPC, be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of `50,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the conditions that these petitioners shall continue to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. The petitioners Santosh, Kusum and Suman being women shall be interrogated strictly in accordance with law. The Cr.M.P.(M) No.412 of 2012 filed by petitioner Ravinder is dismissed.

15. The observations made in the judgment are for the disposal of the bail applications and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy 'Dasti'. May 18, 2012. (Krt) ( Kuldip Singh ), Judge.