Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bindu Sharma
vs
Devinder Kumar And Ors. on 25 January, 1990
Equivalent citations: II (1990) DMC 50
Bench: A Chowdhri
JUDGMENT A.P. Chowdhri, J.
Facts compulsory for a ordering of a benefaction focus underneath Section 439(2) of a Code of Criminal Procedure for termination of anticipatory bail postulated to respondent Nos. 1 to 8 by a schooled Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, are that a postulant was married to respondent No. 1 on 19-4-1988. Differences and disputes carrying arisen, a postulant was allegedly incited out of a residence on 7-5-1989. An FIR underneath Sections 406 or 498A of a Indian Penal Code was lodged on 8-7-1989. The schooled Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, postulated anticipatory bail to respondent Nos. 1 to 8 who are a husband, relatives of a husband, sister, sister’s father and other family of a father of a petitioner. The sequence extenuation anticipatory bail remarkable that a vital apportionment of a purported dowry had already been recovered and was in possession of a Investigating Officer. The benefaction focus for termination of bail was changed on Sep 26, 1989. The termination is sought on a belligerent that a respondents had started intimidating a postulant and her relatives to deter them from appearing in a Court as witnesses in support of a pronounced rapist case.
Affidavit of Radhey Mohan, respondent No. 6, has been filed by approach of lapse in that it is settled that progressing there was a concede between a parties on 19-6-1989 and in pursuit of that concede articles of dowry has been returned to a postulant by a police. It was denied that a respondents had ever dealt any hazard to a postulant or her relatives etc.
The schooled warn for a postulant argued that one of a considerations that weighed with a schooled Additional Sessions Judge while extenuation anticipatory bail was that there was a probability of concede between a parties. No such concede had, however, taken place and, therefore, pronounced care did not reason good. He also argued that all a respondents including a husband, relatives of a father besides other family had been postulated anticipatory bail but gripping in perspective a approach impasse of father and his relatives in so distant as allegations underneath Sections 406 or 498A of a Indian Penal Code were concerned.
In sequence to make out a box for termination of bail, a postulant is compulsory to make out a transparent and convincing case. The allegations with courtesy to purported hazard given to a postulant and her relatives are as deceptive as can be. It has not been controverted before me that a apportionment of a purported dowry had already been recovered during a instance of a postulant and there is no constrained reason for termination of bail. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
