Kavita & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 8 August, 2017

Crl. Misc. No. M-13819-2017 [ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. No. M-13819-2017
Date of Decision : August 08, 2017

Kavita and another …………………………………………….. Petitioners

Verus

State of Haryana and another …………………………… Respondents

Crl. Misc. No. M-10394-2017

Keshav Verma …………………………………………………. Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and another …………………………. Respondents

Crl. Misc. No. M-13996-2017

Deepak ………………………………………………………….. Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another ………………………. Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

Present: Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. Sanjay K. Saini, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate
for respondent No.2.

1 of 6
12-08-2017 03:53:34 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-13819-2017 [ 2 ]

LISA GILL, J. (Oral)

This order shall dispose of CRM-M-13819-2017, CRM-10394-

2017 as well as CRM-M-13996-2017. For the sake of convenience, facts

have been taken from CRM-M-13819-2017.

Petitioners-Kavita and Jagdish (parents-in-law of the

complainant) in CRM-M-13819-2017 seek the concession of anticipatory

bail in FIR No. 64 dated 02.02.2017 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, 120B,

323, 376 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Mehram, District Rohtak.

Petitioner-Keshav Verma (husband of the complainant) in

CRM-M-10394-2017 seeks the concession of bail pending trial in the above

said FIR.

Petitioner-Deepak (brother-in-law of the complainant) in

CRM-M-13996-2017 seeks the concession of anticipatory bail in the above

said FIR.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vague and

general allegations have been levelled against all the petitioners. All the

family members including the married sister-in-law have been implicated in

this case. Married sister-in-law has been granted the concession of bail by

the learned trial Court.

Marriage between the complainant and petitioner-Keshav was

solemnized on 13.12.2015. A son was born out of this wedlock on

13.08.2016. It is submitted that the complainant allegedly left the

matrimonial home on 03.12.2016 as per the averments in the FIR whereas

in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that she left the

matrimonial home on 04.12.2016. Reference is made to certain

conversations between the complainant and her family members including

2 of 6
12-08-2017 03:53:35 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-13819-2017 [ 3 ]

her mother. It is submitted that a perusal of the transcript of these

conversations reveals that she was treated in a proper and affectionate

manner in her matrimonial home. It is urged that no specific allegation has

been levelled against the parents-in-law of the complainant. The minor child

of the complainant and her husband (petitioner’s son) is being looked after

by the parents-in-law of the complainant.

In respect to the petitioner-Deepak in CRM-M-13996-2017 it is

submitted that allegations attracting the offence under Section 376 IPC are

not made out in any manner. There is no evidence medical or otherwise to

substantiate the allegations against him. Mere bald statement of the

complainant in this respect should not be relied upon in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

The petitioner-Keshav Verma in CRM-M-10394-2017 it is

submitted has been incarcerated for approximately 04 (four) months in this

case. No recovery has to be effected from him. It is, thus, prayed that these

petitions be allowed.

Learned counsel for the State and the complainant have

opposed these petitions while submitting that specific allegations have been

levelled against all the petitioners.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is to be noted that efforts were made for an amicable

resolution of the entire dispute between the parties during the pendency of

these petitions. Interim bail was afforded to the petitioner-Keshav Verma by

this Court vide order dated 23.05.2017 in CRM-M-10394-2017 to explore

the possibility of an amicable solution. Interim relief was also granted to the

petitioner-Deepak (brother-in-law) on 23.05.2017 in CRM-M-13996-2017.

3 of 6
12-08-2017 03:53:35 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-13819-2017 [ 4 ]

It was clarified that interim relief has been granted primarily to facilitate

mediation between the parties. However, mediation between the parties

before the Mediation Conciliation Centre of this Court was not

successful. Effort was made to settle the dispute before this Court as well.

However, there were allegations and counter-allegations from each side thus

preventing any viable solution to the dispute. The petitioner-Keshav Verma

was directed to surrender at District Jail Rohtak vide order dated 28.7.2017

on 29.07.2017 at 02:00 P.M. and the matter was fixed for arguments. It is

informed that Keshav Verma has since surrendered in compliance with

order dated 28.07.2017 and is in custody.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Ramesh

Kumar, verifies that the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been

presented against the petitioner-Keshav Verma along with co-accused

Chanda and Jai Kishan (non-applicants). No recovery is to be effected from

Keshav Verma who has admittedly suffered incarceration for about four

months. It is verified that he is not involved in any other criminal case.

In respect to the petitioners-Kavita and Jagdish in CRM-M-

13819-2017, the parents-in-law of the complainant, learned counsel for the

State, on instructions from SI Ramesh Kumar, submits that the said

petitioners joined investigation when the matter was pending before the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. Certain recoveries are yet to be

effected from the said parents-in-law of the complainant. Learned counsel

for the petitioner while denying that any recovery is to be effected from the

parents-in-law submits that the concession of bail cannot be denied merely

on the assertion that ‘certain recoveries’ are to be effected. He relies on the

judgment of this Court in Prit Pal Singh V. State of Punjab and another

4 of 6
12-08-2017 03:53:35 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-13819-2017 [ 5 ]

2014 (5) RCR (Criminal) 771 to say that non recovery of certain articles

cannot be a ground for not affording the concession of anticipatory bail to

the petitioner. Moreover it is submitted that the said petitioners undertake to

join investigation as and when required.

There is no allegation that the petitioners are likely to abscond

or that they are likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts

before the learned trial Court, if released on bail.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, but without

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case CRM-M-13819-2017 is

allowed. The petitioners Kavita and Jagdish shall join investigation as and

when required. In the event of their arrest, petitioners shall be released on

bail to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer. Petitioners shall comply

with the conditions stipulated in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

CRM-M-10394-2017 is also allowed. The petitioner-Keshav

Verma be released on bail pending trial subject to his furnishing requisite

bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

In respect to the petitioner-Deepak, brother-in-law of the

complainant, I find that there are specific allegations attracting the rigours

of Section 376 IPC against him. Furthermore, learned counsel for the State

informs that the petitioner has not joined investigation at any stage. It is

reiterated that interim relief was granted primarily to facilitate mediation

between the parties which was not effected. I do not find any ground to

afford the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner-Deepak in the

facts and circumstances of the case. .

Accordingly, CRM-M-13996-2017 is dismissed.

It is reiterated that none of the observations made here-in-above

5 of 6
12-08-2017 03:53:35 :::
Crl. Misc. No. M-13819-2017 [ 6 ]

shall be construed to be a reflection on merits of the case and shall have no

bearing on trial.

( LISA GILL )
08.08.2017 JUDGE
rupi

Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No

Whether Reportable: Yes / No

6 of 6
12-08-2017 03:53:35 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *