IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA. 1.Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 739 2011 2.Cr.MP(M) No. 740 of 2011. 3.Cr.MP(M) No.741 of 2011 Date of decision: 29.09.2011. _______________________________________________________ 1..Cr.MP(M) No.739 of 2011 Jeet Ram Sharma …..Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …. Respondent. ________________________________________________________ 2. Cr.MP(M) No.740 of 2011 Indira Sharma ….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …. Respondent _________________________________________________________ 3. Cr.MP(M) No.741 of 2011 Arvind Sharma ….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. …. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. ( in all the petitions) For the Respondent : Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Addl.Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. (in all the petitions) Kuldip Singh, J (Oral) This judgment shall dispose of Cr.MP(M) No.739 of 2011, Cr.MP(M) No.740 of 2011 and Cr.MP(M) No.741 of 2011, all having arisen out of FIR No.85 of 2011 dated 18.9.2011 under Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes Sections 498-A, 506, 34 IPC registered at Police Station, Rajgarh. The Status reports have been filed and the same have been perused. 2. Cr.MP(M) No.739 of 2011 has been filed by father-in-law, Cr.MP(M) No.740 of 2011 by mother-in-law and Cr.MP(M) No.741 of 2011 by husband of the complainant Smt. Lalita Sharma. It has been stated in the bail applications that the marriage of complainant was solemnized with petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No.741 of 2011 on 11.5.2011. The complainant stayed with her in-laws for about one month. The complainant and her family never disclosed before her marriage that she was getting treatment from Mental Hospital, Dharampur. The complainant after marriage was admitted for treatment in the hospital at Dharampur. The complainant left the house of in-laws of her own and did not return even after repeated requests. The petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No.741 of 2011 is residing at Shimla. The complainant at the time of living of the house of her in-laws threatened the petitioners to face dire consequences. It has been stated that petitioners are innocent. They have committed no offence. They are ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. No recovery is to be made from the petitioners. On account of registration of the case the petitioners apprehend their arrest, hence bail applications. 3. The bail applications have been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status reports. It has been stated in the status reports that case has been registered on the basis of written complaint of the complainant. She has stated that at the time of her marriage her father had given cheque of ` 51000/-. She had given key of the articles to her mother-in-law when the complainant had gone to Chail after marriage with her husband. On return, she found the cheque which was given to her by her father at the time of marriage had not cashed. 4. It has been alleged that on 4.6.2011, the petitioners had sent the complainant to her father to bring `5 lacs. She disclosed the demand of the petitioners to her father who had shown his inability to pay the amount. It has been alleged that out of fear the complainant had not gone to her in-laws. On 17.6.2011 she went to her in-laws, her father had given ` 50,000/- to her. She handed over ` 50,000/- to her husband and father in law. It appears they did not like that her father had given only ` 50,000/-, they abused her and also gave her beatings. They kept her confined in the room for 3-4 days, nor she was given any food. She was not allowed to touch her articles. It has been alleged that complainant became depressed due to the conduct of her in-laws. She has stated that her brother brought her back from her in-laws house. She was treated by Dr. Virender Mohan at Dharampur and the treatment was going on. The petitioners ill- treated her for not bringing sufficient dowry. She could not report earlier as her state of mind was not proper. The prayer has been made for rejection of bail applications. 5. I have heard both the sides and perused the police file. It has been stated in the status reports that the petitioners have joined the investigation. In the status report recoveries of key of the box, cheque amounting to ` 51,000/- and cash of ` 50,000/- from petitioners has been stated. At the time of hearing of the bail applications, no corroborative material has been pointed out so as to indicate that prima facie key of the box and cheque of ` 51,000/- and cash amounting to ` 50,000/- as claimed by the petitioners were given by the complainant to the petitioners. The petitioners can be interrogated during bail also. It appears the complainant is getting psychiatric treatment. She stayed with petitioners after marriage only for about one month. The petitioners have alleged that mental state of complainant was not disclosed to the petitioners before marriage. The petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. In these circumstances, bail applications being Cr.MP(M) No.739 of 2011, Cr.MP(M) No.740 of 2011 and Cr.MP(M) No.741 of 2011 are allowed, all the petitioners in the event of arrest are ordered to be released on bail in FIR No.85 of 2011 dated 18.9.2011 under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 IPC registered at Police Station, Rajgarh on furnishing their personal bonds in the sum of ` 20,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, with the condition that the 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 in any manner. 7. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail applications and it shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy ‘Dasti’. September 29, 2011 (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge.