IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.M. No. 76 of 2008. Date of decision: 18.3.2008. Surinderi Devi & anr. ….. Petitioners. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. T.S.Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A. K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). This is an application, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for releasing the petitioners on bail in case FIR No. 16 of 2008 dated 11.2.2008, registered at Police Station, Kandaghat, under Sections 498-A, 323 and Section 34 IPC. The respondent has filed the status report. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 11.2.2008 complainant Smt. Bhavana wife of Vikas accompanied with her father Karam Chand and mother Veena Devi reported at Police Station that she was married to Vikas on 15.10.2007, her parents gave gifts to her in the marriage as per their status. After the marriage, her husband and mother-in-law started troubling her, but she kept silent and did not disclose to her parents that her in-laws are troubling her. She is carrying pregnancy of three months. On 7.2.2008 at about 11.00 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… a.m. she told her husband that she is having pain in her stomach and she be taken to hospital. On this her husband started abusing her and when she repeated the request, he started beating her. He gave beating to her inside the house, as a result of which she suffered injuries on her left eye, right arm, leg and on the back. Smt. Surinderi Devi her mother- in- law came on the spot and she also instigated her husband to give more beating to the complainant, her mother-in-law also gave beatings to her. The outer shutter of the house was pulled and closed by them. She contacted her parents on the mobile phone of her husband. On 9.2.2008 in the evening, her parents reached. On asking by her parents, they (the petitioners) told that at the time of marriage no dowry was given and therefore, they will not keep the complainant. At the time of beating no-one was present there. On this FIR was registered at Police Station, Kandaghat. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. In fact, the petitioners have objected to the suggestion of father-in-law of petitioner No. 2 for separation. The petitioners have joined the investigation, no recovery is to be made from them and they are ready to comply with the conditions imposed by the court in case they are released on bail. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application and has submitted that petitioners are instrumental in causing both physical and mental cruelty to the complainant. The petitioners are demanding dowry from the complainant. They have given beatings to the complainant and, therefore, they may not be released on bail. …3… 5. The investigation in the case is complete. As per status report, the challan has been prepared on 1.3.2008. In the status report it has also been mentioned that the complainant was not locked in the room. The petitioners are residents of village Bangana, District Una and the FIR has been registered at Police Station, Kandaghat. The investigation in the case is complete and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. There is no allegation that petitioners have not joined the investigation. Therefore, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have made out a case for bail, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the application is allowed and interim order passed on 15.2.2008 is made absolute and it is directed that in the event of arrest of bail petitioners in case FIR No. 16 of 2008 dated 11.2.2008, registered at Police Station, Kandaghat, under Sections 498-A, 323 and Section 34 IPC, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer subject to the conditions that petitioners shall not hamper the investigation or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 6. Any observation made herein above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 7. Dasti copy on usual terms. March 18, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.