IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.M. No. 161 of 2008. Date of decision: 19.3.2008. Dilbagh Singh ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. N.K.Thakur, 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 petitioner on bail in case FIR No. 34 of 2008 dated 21.2.2008, registered at Police Station, Amb, under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC. The respondent has filed the status report. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that complainant Manju Bala accompanied with her father Kuber Singh, brothers Surya Kant and Gurdial Singh approached the police and her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded. She has stated that she is serving as P.T.A. teacher at Senior Secondary School, Salohi. She was Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… married to Dilbagh Singh on 26.4.2002 and she has two children from the marriage, one male and one female. The husband of the complainant runs a private school at Amb in the name of Indian Public School. The husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant started troubling her some time after the marriage. She initially tolerated the same but later on she narrated the whole story to her parents, brother and relatives. On 29.4.2007, the parents and relatives of the complainant approached the in-laws of the complainant, but thereafter her husband and in-laws intensified their maltreatment towards her. They pressurized the complainant to bring more money from her parents, which she paid to them 10-12 times. On 8.1.2008 those persons got signed some blank papers from her under pressure. On 9/10.1.2008 those persons tortured her and on 11.1.2008 the complainant went to her parents and filed a complaint before Gram Panchayat, Bhagrah and also a complaint before Police Station, Amb. On 12.1.2008, both parties alongwith respectable persons came to Police Station, Amb and the matter was compromised orally. On 19.1.2008 a written compromise was executed between the parties. However, the aforesaid persons are still physically and mentally torturing the complainant. On this police registered the case. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been implicated in a false case. The relations between husband and the wife are strained; the wife is living separately with her parents. The mother and brother of the petitioner have filed anticipatory bail applications in the case and the learned Additional …3… Sessions Judge has allowed the bail applications of the mother and brother, but refused the bail to the petitioner. It has been submitted that petitioner is ready to comply with the directions of this court in case bail is granted to him. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the ground that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. He and other members of his family have tortured the complainant. He is an influential person and he will misuse the liberty in case bail is granted to him. 5. In the status report filed by the respondent in para-11 it has been specifically stated that investigation of the case is almost complete and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. It appears the relations between the husband and wife are not good. The petitioner has joined the investigation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of bail petitioner in case FIR No. 34 of 2008 dated 21.2.2008, registered at Police Station, Amb, under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer subject to the condition that petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Officer. He shall not hamper the investigation or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. …4… 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 19, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.