IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA 1.Cr.MP(M). No. 315 of 2011. 2.Cr.MP(M).No. 317 of 2011. Date of Decision: 17.5.2011. _______________________________________________ 1.Cr.MP(M). No. 315 of 2011. Samangalan Devi. ….Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. ….Respondent. 2.Cr.MP(M). No. 317 of 2011. Bhupinder Singh. ….Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?. No. For the petitioners :Ms. Divya Sood, Advocate., For Respondent. :Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J. Both these petitions are being taken up together for decision as they arise out of the same incident. The petitioner in Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment.yes. 2 Cr.MP(M).No. 317 of 2011 is the husband and in Cr.MP(M).No. 315 of 2011, she is the mother-in-law of the deceased. Both of them approached the learned trial Court for grant of bail pleading that they were not in any manner involved in offences under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. registered with Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra. The case set out by the police against them was that Bhupuinder Singh was married to one Naina Devi in April, 2008 and they have a child of two years from the wedlock. The deceased (wife) was treated well for the first 3/4 months where after she was meted out maltreatment for not bringing adequate dowry. It was alleged that he along with her mother Samagalan Devi were responsible for meting out this maltreatment. On 22.3.2011 the deceased had gone to her parental house to attend the ‘Chaubarsi’ (fourth death anniversary of her ‘Taya’). She returned home on 23.3.2011 on which date the father of the deceased who is the complainant, received a telephonic message that deceased had consumed some poison and committed suicide. The learned trial Court considering the allegations made on the record, rejected both the bail applications considering the heinous nature of the offence. The present applications have now been filed. According to the learned Deputy Advocate General, the investigation so far reveals that there is an accusing finger at both the petitioners herein as they were directed responsible for forcing to take desperate step. There are no changed circumstances. I also find from the statements which have been recorded by the police that the petitioners cannot claim innocence in the manner in which they now urge. The medical examination reports show that the deceased was 3 taken to the Dr.Rejender Prasad Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Kangra at 5.05 p.m. on 23.3.2011 and was declared dead at 5.10 p.m. despite some medicine having been administered to her. She was three to five months pregnant at the time of her death. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the father-in-law of the deceased i.e. husband of Samangala Devi and father of Bhupinder Singh requires care as he is a person who has suffering from very high blood pressure causing difficulty in walking etc. The child of the deceased is also alone and there is nobody to look after him. The medical record of the father-in-law has also been produced before this Court for inspection. I do not find that the illness to be such as which is crippling but none the less the father-in-law Bhagi Rath does require some body to look after him. It is also submitted that the brother of Bhupinder Singh who is serving in the Army, is now going back to rejoin his Unit and in these circumstances the entire family will suffer. In these circumstances, it is directed that petitioner- Samangala Devi shall be released on bail on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. It is further directed that: (a) The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called for by the Investigating Officer; (b)The petitioner shall not in any manner either directly or indirectly, tamper with the prosecution evidence or in any manner try to overawe, influence or threaten prosecution witnesses; (c)The petitioner will be supervised by the Station House Officer or any other officer so appointed by the Police Station, 4 Kangra to ensure that she does not abuse a liberty. In a moment it transpires that she is making any attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses, the matter be reported to this court immediately and further action will be taken in accordance with law. (d) The petitioner shall not abscond from the jurisdiction of learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. (e) It is clarified that in the event of violation of any of the conditions imposed, the bail shall stand cancelled, the petitioner shall be taken into custody forthwith and the matter be referred to this Court. (f) The petitioner shall apply afresh for bail before the trial Court when the challan is filed. (g) Needless to say that the police will follow all the instructions/directives issued by the Supreme Court for interrogation of women Petitions stand disposed of. Bail petition of Bhupinder Singh is rejected. Copy dasti on usual terms. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. May 17,2011(R) .