IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) Nos. 882, 884 and 885 of 2011 Date of decision: 17.11.2011 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 882 of 2011 Vir Singh Thakur …. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. ….. Respondent _________________________________________________________ 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 884 of 2011 Ankush Thakur ..Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. ….Respondent 3. Cr.MP(M) No. 885 of 2011 Smt. Leela Thakur ..Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.S.Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This judgment shall dispose of Cr.MP(M) No. 882 of 2011, Cr.MP(M) No. 884 of 2011 and Cr.MP(M) No.885 of 2011 all having arisen out of FIR No. 122 of 2011 dated 5.10.2011 registered Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?yes at Police Station, Parwanoo, under Sections 498-A, 506, 504 and 34 IPC. Cr.MP(M) No. 882 of 2011 has been filed by Vir Singh Thakur, father-in-law, Cr.MP(M) No. 884 of 2011 has been filed by Ankush Thakur, husband and Cr.MP(M) No. 885 of 2011 has been filed by Leela Thakur, mother-in-law of Shivani, complainant. 2. The petitioners have stated in the applications that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case. There is no direct or indirect evidence connecting the petitioners with the commission of offence. The petitioners are ready to join the investigation. It has been stated that no recovery is to be made from the petitioners. The petitioners are ready to furnish the bail bonds as per the directions of this Court. 3. It has also been stated that the marriage between Ankush Thakur and complainant Shivani took place on 8.10.2009 and from their wedlock son Karan Vir Singh Thakur was born on 9.6.2010. It has been stated that both the complainant and Ankush Thakur were working, the complainant requested her mother-in-law to take Karan Vir Singh Thakur along with her to Shimla as the complainant would not be in a position to look after the child. The mother-in-law of the complainant brought Karan Vir Singh Thakur with her to Shimla in November, 2010. 4. On 12.9.2011 the petitioners were asked to report at Police Station, Chotta Shimla. The complainant and her relatives were also at Police Station, Chotta Shimla. The SHO, Police Station, Chotta Shimla asked the petitioners to hand over the custody of the child to Shivani but petitioners declined to hand over the custody of child to Shivani. The SHO, Police Station, Chotta Shimla threatened the petitioners that they would be involved in some case under Section 498-A IPC. 5. On 17.9.2011 again a message was received from Police Station, Chotta Shimla. The petitioners on 17.9.2011 reported at Police Station, Chotta Shimla. The SHO, Police Station, Chotta Shimla and relatives of the complainant pressurized the petitioners to hand over the custody of child to the complainant. On 19.9.2011 complainant, 3 constables and 7-8 relatives of the complainant visited the house of the petitioners in order to take forcible custody of the child. The complainant failed to take custody of the child from the petitioners especially father Ankush Thakur, therefore, the complainant has filed false FIR No. 122 of 2011 dated 5.10.2011 at Police Station, Parwanoo. 6. The status report has been filed in Cr.MP(M) No. 882 of 2011. It has been stated that the case has been registered on the basis of written complaint of Shivani, who came to the Police Station alongwith her father on 5.10.2011. It has come in the investigation that petitioners had abused the complainant Shivani and threatened to kill her. She has been treated with cruelty both mental and physical. The complainant has been ridiculed by taunting her ‘Kinnauri’. The son of Shivani has been separated from her mother by Ankush and Leela Thakur on 27.8.2011 from Parwanoo and has been taken to Shimla. 7. It has been stated in the status report that the complainant has stated that petitioners demanded ` 15,00,000/- for starting new business. The complainant had been staying with her husband Ankush at Parwanoo in a private residence. On account of differences Shivani had been attending her duty at Parwanoo from Dharampur but Ankush locked the quarter and himself left to Shimla. In this way, the complainant was even deprived of her clothes also. The mother-in-law had started taunting Shivani one month after the marriage. She started enquiring about the ‘Shagun’ which was given to Shivani during her marriage. She also enquired about her salary. 8. It has been stated that the petitioners had earlier filed bail application at Solan, which was withdrawn. The complainant had obtained warrant of production of the child under Sections 97, 98 Cr.P.C. from Sub Divisional Magistrate, Solan but the child could not be traced and the warrant has been sent back on 5.11.2011. The petitioners have obtained interim bail from the High Court. It has been stated that investigation in the case is in progress. 9. Heard and perused the police file. In the status report it has not been stated that the petitioners are not co-operating in the investigation. The FIR has been registered on the basis of written complaint dated 4.10.2011 of the complainant. It is not the stand of the investigating agency that the petitioners are not co-operating in the investigation nor a request has been made for custodial interrogation of the petitioners, otherwise also no case for custodial interrogation has been made out. 10. It emerges from the complaint that the complainant has grievance against the petitioners about their conduct, custody of child and demand of ` 15,00,000/- for starting new business. It has not been stated that some recovery is to be made from the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 11. Thus, in the event of arrest of the petitioners in FIR No. 122 of 2011 dated 5.10.2011 registered at Police Station, Parwanoo, under Sections 498-A, 506, 504 and 34 IPC, they are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of ` 25,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the condition that 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 or terrorize the prosecution witnesses in any manner. The petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 885 of 2011 is woman, she shall be investigated strictly in accordance with law. 12. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail applications only and the same shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy Dasti. November 17, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh), (GR) Judge.