IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 53 of 2009 Date of decision: February 5, 2009. Rajinder Singh & ors. …..Petitioners. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Vacation Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Ashutosh Burathoki, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. A.G. & Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. A.G. for the State- respondent. Mr. Virender Thakur, Advocate, for complainant Adarsh Guleria. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioners on bail in case FIR No. 25 of 2009 registered on 24.1.2009 at Police Station, Jawali, under Sections 306, 498-A, 34 IPC. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case for the death of Shivani wife of petitioner No.1, who died on 22.1.2009. It has been submitted that marriage between petitioner No.1 and Shivani was solemnized in February 2008. In August 2008, Shivani went to her parents house and stayed there till Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… December 2008 and thereafter she joined petitioner No.1 and lived with him till 15.1.2009. She again went to her parents house on 15.1.2009 and on 22.1.2009 petitioners received information from the father of Shivani that she had committed suicide. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that pursuant to the interim order dated 30.1.2009 of this court, the petitioners have joined the investigation, no recovery is to be made from them. He has, however, submitted that petitioners are ready to join the investigation in accordance with the directions of this court and they are also ready to furnish the bail bonds. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it appears Shivani was emotional woman and she ended her life for that reason. The petitioners never ill-treated Shivani nor they demanded dowry from her. They are innocent. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3. The bail application has been opposed by Mr. Ramesh Thakur and Mr. R.P.Singh, learned Assistant Advocates General and Mr. Virender Thakur, Advocate who appeared on behalf of complainant Adarsh Guleria. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that case was registered on the basis of statement of Adarsh Guleria, brother of the deceased. The State while opposing the bail application has relied on the suicide note of Shivani as well as the statements of Narinder Singh Guleria, father, Madhu mother and Shivali sister of the deceased. Narinder Guleria in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that Shivani told him that her husband and in-laws blamed her for everything, they demanded …3… money. She also disclosed that her husband and in-laws used to torture her. The statement of Narinder Singh Guleria has been corroborated by his wife Madhu under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Shivali in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that on 11.1.2009, she alongwith Jyoti had visited Shivani and stayed there. On that date Dimple (petitioner No.1) was not there. He came on 13.1.2009 and without any cause, he took quarrel with Shivani. The in-laws of Shivani were blaming Shivani and supported petitioner No.1. They were blaming Shivani for everything in the house. On 14.1.209, they came to Nagrota Surian. She told her that her in-laws and husband suspected her character. The police during investigation has recovered suicide note dated 22.1.2009 of Shivani in which Dimple petitioner No. 1 has been named. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is delay in lodging the FIR. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that in fact the petitioners earlier filed bail application in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Dharamshala and they simultaneously filed the present application in this court which is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that earlier bail application was withdrawn before the case was taken up on the previous date by this court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and Shivani took place on 22.2.2008, Shivani ended her life on 22.1.2009 in less than one year after the marriage. In normal circumstances, no girl would take such harsh step. The mother, father and sister of the deceased have …4… named petitioner No.1 specifically and other in-laws of Shivani for compelling her to take the extreme step. In the suicide note of Shivani, petitioner No.1 has been named. The case is at the initial stage. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary in order to bring out the truth. In the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner No. 1 is not entitled to bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., whereas petitioners No. 2 to 5 have made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners No. 2 to 5 in case FIR No. 25 of 2009 registered on 24.1.2009 at Police Station, Jawali, under Sections 306, 498-A, 34 IPC, they be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and they shall continue to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Officer. They shall not hamper the investigation or tamper with the prosecution evidence. The petitioners No. 3 and 4 are women, therefore, they are to be interrogated strictly in accordance with law by the Investigating Officer. The bail application of petitioner No. 1 is rejected. 5. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. 6. Copy dasti. February 5, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Vacation Judge.