CRM No.M-24595 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:1.10.2010 Manju alias Anju and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Vikas Malik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Having exercised their right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Sessions, petitioners-Manju alias Anju and Avinesh Kumar alias Rinku (Jethani and Jeth of complainant) respectively, have filed the present petition for anticipatory bail, in a case registered against them alongwith their other co- accused, namely, Parveen alias Monu, Kharaiti Lal Kalra, Smt.Saroj, vide FIR No.161 dated 28.07.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 406 and 498-A read with section 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Sadar, Tohana, District Fatehabad, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. The symposium of the facts, relevant for disposal of the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that the marriage of complainant-Neeru Bala was solemnized with Parveen alias Monu on 12.07.2009, at Village Jamalpur Shekhon, according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. The father of the complainant was stated to have given sufficient dowry articles and golden ornaments by spending Rs.7,00,000/-, but the accused party was not satisfied with it. They started demanding more dowry and harassing her. They also demanded Rs.2,00,000/- in cash. CRM No.M-24595 of 2010 2 3. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the complainant, the accused treated her with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of written complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner described here-in-above. 4. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Rajan Gupta, J.), while issuing notice of motion, passed the following order on 24.08.2010:- “Contends that petitioners have been named in the FIR despite being distant relations (Jethani and Jeth). Notice of motion for 15.09.2010. Meanwhile, in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:- (i) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) they shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) they shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.” 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition for anticipatory bail deserves to be accepted in this regard. 6. At the very outset, on instructions from ASI Raj Kumar, learned State Counsel has submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioners are Jethani and Jeth of the complainant and very vague and general allegations are assigned to them in the FIR. Kharati Lal and Saroj Bala, co-accused of the petitioners, have already been allowed CRM No.M-24595 of 2010 3 anticipatory bail, vide order dated 24.9.2010 passed by this court in CRM No.M- 24881 of 2010. The main accused Parveen (husband), who was arrested and was allowed bail by the Magistrate. All the offences alleged against the petitioners are triable by the Court of Magistrate. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any such case. 7. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, nature and gravity of the accusation emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the present petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. Consequently, it is directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and (iii) they will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court. 9. Needless to state that, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their bail, in this respect. 10. The petition is disposed of accordingly. 1.10.2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) AS JUDGE