IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. 1. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1022 of 2009 2. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1023 of 2009 3. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1024 of 2009 Date of decision : 30.11.2009 ____________________________________________________________ 1. Rajinder Kumar …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent. _____________________________________________________________ 2. Chhelo Devi …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent. _____________________________________________________________ 3. Ramna Devi …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent. _____________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Petitioner(s) : Mr.R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocate. ( in all the petitions) For the Respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant AG. ( in all the petitions) Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This judgment shall dispose of Cr.MP(M) No.1022 of 2009, Cr.MP(M) No.1023 of 2009, Cr.MP(M) No.1024 of 2009 filed _______________ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?Yes 2 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by Rajinder Kumar, Chhelo Devi and Ramna Devi, respectively for releasing them on bail in FIR No. 254/09 dated 24.10.2009 registered at Police Station, Palampur, District Kangra under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. The status report has been filed in Cr.MP(M) No.1022 of 2009. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. Rajinder Kumar is the husband, Chhelo Devi mother in-law and Ramna Devi sister-in-law of deceased Lajya Devi. The case has been registered on the statement of Jagdish Chand brother of deceased Lajya Devi recorded on 24.10-.2009 under Section 154 Cr.P.C. According to the Investigating Agency, Lajya Devi and Rajinder Kumar were married 12/13 years ago and they lived happily for about 4/5 years. Thereafter Rajinder Kumar, Chhelo Devi and Ramna Devi started ill-treating the deceased and to this effect Lajya Devi several times told the complainant side but every time the complainant side advised Lajya Devi and sent her to her matrimonial home. The three accused did not stop torturing Lajya Devi, the complainant side reported the matter to the Pardhan who also advised them. On 24.10.2009 the complainant had received information that Lajya Devi had died. The complainant alongwith others went to the house of Lajya Devi at village Goth and found her dead. The complainant suspected the hand of Rajinder Kumar, Chhelo Devi and Ramna Devi in the death of Lajya Devi who forced Lajya Devi to commit suicide by taking some poison. On this case was registered on 24.10.2009. 3 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No.1022 of 2009 has submitted that petitioner has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner had earlier filed bail application which has been rejected by learned Sessions Judge on 16.11.2009. The deceased has left behind two children. There is no material on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. The investigation in the case is almost complete. No recovery is to be made. In these circumstances, no purpose will be served to keep the petitioner for indefinite period in jail. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. In Cr.MP(M) No.1023 of 2009 and Cr.MP(M) No.1024 of 2009 almost similar grounds have been taken for releasing the petitioners on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioners in all the three petitions has prayed for grant of bail. 5. Bail applications of the petitioners have been opposed by learned Addl. Advocate General on the ground that petitioners ill-treated Smt. Lajya Devi who ultimately committed suicide. It has not been denied that the investigation in the case is almost complete and no recovery is to be made from the petitioners. 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties. The deceased was married about 13 years ago. It is the case of the Investigating Agency that the deceased lived happily for initial 4/5 years of the marriage. Thereafter petitioners started ill-treating her but there is nothing on record to show that during the alleged ill-treatment of the deceased some written complaint was made by deceased or by complainant side to some 4 lawful authority. There is nothing in the status report that some demand of dowry was made. The allegations of ill-treatment in the status report are not explicit. No recovery is to be made from the petitioners. The trial of the case is likely to take some time. In these circumstances, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail, accordingly all the bail applications being Cr.MP(M) No.1022 of 2009, Cr.MP(M) No.1023 of 2009, Cr.MP(M) No.1024 of 2009 are allowed. All the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 254/09 dated 24.10.2009 registered at Police Station, Palampur, District Kangra under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharamshala with the conditions that petitioners shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 7. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail applications only and the same shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy Dasti on usual terms November 30, 2009. (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1023 of 2009 Date of decision : 30.11.2009 ____________________________________________________________ Chhelo Devi …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent. _____________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? For the Petitioner : Mr.R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant AG. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) For judgment see judgment of the date rendered in Cr.MP(M) No.1022 of 2009 titled Rajinder Kumar vs. State of H.P. November 30, 2009. (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge _______________ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1024 of 2009 Date of decision : 30.11.2009 ____________________________________________________________ Ramna Devi …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent. _____________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? For the Petitioner : Mr.R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant AG. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) For judgment, see judgment of the date rendered in Cr.MP(M) No.1022 of 2009 titled Rajinder Kumar vs. State of H.P. November 30, 2009. (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge _______________ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?