CRMPM/1074/2011 on 28 December 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA.

Cr.M.P.(M) No.1074 of 2011.

Date of decision: 28.12.2011.

_______________________________________________________ Brahmi Devi w/o Sh. Satpaul, S/o Sh. Gorkhu Ram, Village & P.O. Bhali, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

….. Petitioner.

Versus State of Himachal Pradesh.

….. Respondent.

Application under Section 439 of Code of

Criminal Procedure for the grant of the bail.

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Ms. Kanta Thakur, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Addl.A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana,Asstt. A.G.

Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral).

This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 144/2011 dated 17.06.2011, registered at Police Station, Jawali, under Sections 498-A, 306, 403, 34 IPC.

2. It has been stated in the application that a person had lodged a report in Police Station, Jawali, that one Smt. Anita aged about 21 years has died by taking poisonous substance. The marriage of the deceased with Aswani Kumar had taken place in February, 2009. The deceased died on 16.06.2011 within two years Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

…2… and about four months of marriage. The petitioner mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband and brother-in-law of the deceased were arrested. The petitioner filed Cr.M.P.(M) No. 550 of 2011 in this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. which has been dismissed on 29.07.2011.

3. It has been stated that there is no-one in the family to look after the affairs of the family inasmuch as husband and two sons of the petitioners are in jail in the case. The allegations against the petitioner are of general nature. The investigation in the case is complete and challan has been submitted in the Court. There is no justification for keeping the petitioner in jail, who is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

4. The bail application has been opposed on the basis of status report. It has been stated that case has been registered on the statement of Smt. Nirmala Devi under Section 154 Cr.P.C. She has stated that she is widow and performed the marriage of her daughter Anita with Ashwani Kumar in February, 2009. The husband, petitioner and other in-laws of the deceased started troubling deceased after about three months of the marriage on small matters. They demanded dowry. Anita was turned out from the matrimonial home 3-4 times, but every time the complainant persuaded the deceased to join her matrimonial home. On 16.06.2011 at about 8.30 a.m., the petitioner informed on telephone that Anita has consumed something. The complainant went to see her daughter at about 11.00 a.m. The complainant was ahead of Shahpur, then sister-in-law of Anita informed her that Anita has died at Tanda. The

…3… petitioner got down at Rait and returned to her home. The complainant thereafter along with some villagers and relatives went to Tanda and saw the dead body of her daughter. The complainant has stated that her daughter was not weak temperamentally, she has firm belief that on account of torture of her in-laws including husband and petitioner, the deceased had consumed some poison. On this, the case was registered. The petitioner was arrested on 17.06.2011. As per F.S.L. Report, phosphine gas was detected in the contents of viscera of the deceased.

5. The challan was submitted in the Court on 15.11.2011. The bail application of the petitioner has been rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala on 08.07.2011. The other bail application of the petitioner has been dismissed by the High Court on 29.07.2011. The next date of hearing in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dharamshala, is fixed on 10.01.2012. The prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application.

6. I have heard both the sides and perused the police file. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioner, her husband and two sons are in jail. No purpose will be served to keep the petitioner in jail for indefinite period. It has been stated that there is no material on record connecting the petitioner for commission of the offence. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the next date of hearing in the trial Court is fixed for P.W.s. In all there are 18 witnesses and out of them 9 witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution. It has been stated that there is no

…4… change of circumstance after 29.07.2011 insofar the bail application of the petitioner is concerned.

7. In the status report, it has been stated that challan was submitted in the Court on 15.11.2011, but in the order dated 29.07.2011 in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 550 of 2011, the High Court has observed that the evidence recorded by the police during investigation and statements of witnesses suggest involvement of the petitioner in the case and, therefore, bail application of the petitioner was rejected. In view of this observation, the filing of the challan on 15.11.2011 does not improve the case of the petitioner for releasing her on bail for the reason that relevant statements and evidence were already before the High Court when the order dated 29.07.2011 was passed. In addition, the trial of the case is already at advanced stage, half of the prosecution witnesses have already been examined and next date of hearing is fixed on 10.01.2012. The trial itself is going to be completed very soon, therefore, the bail application is rejected.

8. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail application and shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

December 28, 2011.

(Kuldip Singh), (krt)

Judge.