IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P(M) No. 502 of 2009. Date of decision: June 29, 2009. Charan Singh & ors. …..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. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (oral). This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioners on bail in FIR No. 53 of 2009, registered at Police Station, Sadar Chamba, under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 IPC. Status report has been filed, heard and perused the record. 2. The brief facts are that on 22.2.2009 Smt. Hima Gill alongwith her mother Smt. Neelam came to Police Station and submitted a written complaint for taking action against the petitioners. It was alleged that complainant got married with Harjeet Singh petitioner No. 2 on 9.6.2004, two daughters namely Ms. Navneet Kaur about 4 years old and Ms. Jaspreet Kaur aged about one month old were born to the complainant from the marriage. The husband, father-in-law petitioner No. 1 and mother –in-law petitioner No. 3 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… started abusing the complainant for not bring sufficient dowry. The complainant refused to bring money etc. from her parents, on this petitioners started harassing and beating the complainant. On 18.2.2009 the petitioners gave beatings to the complainant and turned her out from matrimonial home as she had given birth to second female child. The complainant informed her mother on 18.2.2009. The mother of the complainant visited the complainant on 20.2.2009, the petitioners abused the mother of the complainant also. On 22.2.2009, the petitioners No. 1 and 2 came to the house of complainant’s mother at Sarol and gave beatings to the complainant. They demanded one lakh rupees and other articles. On the complaint of the complainant FIR No. 53 of 2009 was registered on 28.2.2009 under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 IPC. It has not been denied that petitioners in pursuance of the order dated 22.6.2009 have not joined the investigation. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. The complainant is the legally wedded wife of petitioner No. 2 and they have two children from the marriage. The demand of the dowry as alleged is wrong and false, just to pressurize the petitioners. It has been submitted that earlier the matter was compromised on 22.2.2009 but again false complaint has been lodged. The complainant has filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance for herself and to the daughter, which is pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba. The petitioners are ready to furnish the bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this …3… court. The bail has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the ground that investigation in the case has not yet been completed. The petitioner may influence the witnesses. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. The complainant and petitioner No.2 were married on 9.6.2004 as per status report. They have two daughters from the marriage. The petitioners have joined the investigation. It is not the case of the prosecution that petitioners are not cooperating in the investigation. The prosecution has not come forward with plea that specific recovery is to be made from the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have made out a case for grant of bail, under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners in FIR No. 53 of 2009, registered at Police Station, Sadar Chamba, under Sections 498-A, 506, 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. The petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner No. 3 is a woman and therefore, she shall be interrogated strictly in accordance with law. The petitioners are directed not to hamper the investigation or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. Copy dasti. June 29, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.