1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Smt. Sushila Devi & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B.CR. MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.3915/2007 DATE OF ORDER :: November 21, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.M.K.Garg, for the petitioners. Mr.Ashok Upadhyaya, P.P. for the State. Mr.R.K.Charan ] Mr.Anand Purohit ] for the first informant. BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Public Prosecutor for the State and the counsel for the first informant. Perused the order impugned and the police investigation diary. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that first informant Smt. Nidhi Kaviya herself lodged a report with Police Station, Shashtri Nagar, Jaipur on 28.12.2006 stating therein that her parents have been harassing her. She categorically stated in the report that neither her husband nor 2 in-laws have been harassing her or demanding the dowry. It is further contended that Gopal Singh, husband of the first informant also lodged a report on 1.7.2007 against the parents of Nidhi, first informant herein that he was asked by Nidhi's parents to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- for the training of B.Ed. Course, which Nidhi was to undertake and he went with a sum of Rs.60,000/-; the amount was snatched by his in-laws, who are parents of the first informant herein. Thereafter, a report was lodged by Arvind, brother of first informant Nidhi on 3.7.2007 stating therein that his sister's in-laws wanted to take her (Nidhi) forcibly and thereafter a report was lodged by Nidhi, the first informant herein on 9.7.2007 alleging the occurrence of 10.5.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance of direction of this Court dt. 21.8.2007, the petitioners appeared before the police and handed over the dowry articles alleged to have been belonging to the complainant, list of which is on record of the police investigation diary. Learned counsel further submits that in the first information report, the first informant categorically stated that she was assaulted on 10.5.2007 and turned out from matrimonial home by the petitioners. Learned counsel submits 3 that petitioner No.2 is an employee of the State Government and at the relevant time, he was posted at Medical and Health Department in Mobile Unit, Sitabari, District Baran. By order dt. 22.10.2007, the concerned Investigating Officer was directed to investigate the matter as to whether on the relevant date of occurrence i.e. 10.5.2007, petitioner No.2 Ramjeevan Singh was present at the place of occurrence or not. The police has investigated the matter in light of the direction of this Court with regard to the presence of petitioner No.2 at the place of occurrence on 10.5.2007 and found that petitioner No.2 was on duty at Sitabari, District Baran and thus, the allegation against petitioner No.2 is false. On the contrary, it was the parents of the first informant, who wanted to harass the first informant and took the amount forcibly from the husband of the first informant, who is son of the present petitioners, which is evident from the record. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the matter has been investigated in the light of the direction of this Court dt. 22.10.2007 and the police recorded the statement of Dr. B.S.Bavel, Raghuveer Singh, Akhlesh Narayan Khatri, Dinesh Chandra Sharma etc., who all are from Medical and Health Department. They have stated that petitioner No.2 Ramjeevan 4 Singh was posted in the Mobile Unit, Sitabari, Distt. Baran and a camp was organized for the surgery in the Surgical Unit at Sitabari, Baran and petitioner No.2 was present throughout from 07.5.2007 to 17.5.2007. A report to this effect by investigating police officer is placed on police investigation diary. Learned counsel appearing for the first informant submit that though the dowry articles have been given but in place of giving the original articles handed over to in-laws of the first informant, used articles have been returned and some of the jeweleries have not yet been returned. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have extensively gone through the police investigation diary. There is specific allegation in the FIR that on 10.5.2007, the first informant was assaulted and turned out from the matrimonial home in the wearing clothes. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, prima facie there is strong evidence that on 10.5.2007, he was not present at the place of occurrence as from 07.5.2007 to 17.5.2007 he was posted at Sitabari, Baran, a distance far from the alleged place of occurrence. The dowry articles alleged to have been belonging to the complainant have 5 been handed over to the police and a Fard has been prepared by the police on 23.8.2007 showing therein that in compliance of the direction of this Court dt. 21.8.2007, the petitioners appeared before the Investigating Officer and handed over the dowry articles, which have been taken by the police in its possession. The question remains for consideration as to whether any other jewellery, which has been entrusted to the petitioners has not been returned. On careful perusal of the statement of the first informant and other witnesses, there is no evidence that the jewellery was entrusted to the present petitioners. If at all any jewellery was given, that may be with the first informant or with her husband. At any rate, prima facie there is no evidence showing the entrustment of the jewellery to the present petitioners. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case to the extent that on 10.5.2007, prima facie there is evidence that petitioner No.2 was not present at the place of occurrence and so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, she is an old lady and the fact that the petitioners appeared before the police and the dowry articles have been returned and if at all there is allegation of administering the tablets to the first informant, it is against 6 Gopal Singh, husband of the first informant, in my view, it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the petitioners under section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners Smt. Sushila Devi w/o Ramjeevan Singh and Ramjeevan Singh s/o Hari Singh in FIR No.171/2007, P.S. Kotwali, Churu, they shall be released on bail for a period till the police concludes the investigation and files the challan provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- along with one surety of like amount each to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer to surrender and appear before the trial court on the date of filing of the challan after conclusion of the investigation on the following conditions:- (i)That they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii)That they 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)That they shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. The petitioners shall surrender before the trial court on the date of filing of the challan. (H.R.PANWAR),J. m.asif/-