Harvinder Singh Arora And Anr. vs State N.C.T. Of Delhi
2002 Latest Caselaw 1092 Del

ORDER

Mahmood Ali Khan, J.

1. The petitioners have applied for grant of anticipatory bail. Their daughter-in-law Ms. Biban Kaur was admitted in hospital having consumed alprex tablets. The SDM recorded her statement in which she made grave and serious allegations of mental and physical cruelty and harassment against her husband and harassment and cruel treatment against the petitioners. The SDM recommended for registration of the case under Section 498A and 406 IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed their application.

2. Counsel for petitioners has argued that the son of the petitioner was married with the complainant on 11.12.1999 and thereafter for about 3 weeks they went

abroad. They were happily residing thereafter till the complainant gave birth to a female child, unfortunately the child died and the complainant suffered depression although she was given full support by her husband and petitioners to come out of it but to no effect. It is submitted that in the night of 27.4.2002 she took about 10 alprex tablets and she was taken to hospital by them and her husband. After their marriage even petitioner No. 1 had deposited Rs. 31,000/- and Rs. 41,000/- in the joint name of the complainant and her husband. The petitioners are well off and there is no cause for them to cause harassment nor was any allegation made of causing harassment on account of payment of dowry by the complainant in the statement recorded by the SDM. it was further argued that petitioner No. 2 is about 55 years old of age. For the past over 20 years she is suffering from tongue cancer and she is getting treatment in India and abroad. She had also surgery, chemotheraphy and treatment in different hospitals. She is unable to speak properly and because of chemotherapy treatment and strong medicines administered she is almost a crippled lady. He drew attention to the copies

of various medical prescriptions etc. to support his argument. He further submitted that during the pendency of the application before the Additional Sessions Judge the petitioners have already returned about two third of

the istridhan of the value of Rs. 23.00 lac to the complainant but he retracted this statement on the instructions from his clients and submitted that the petitioners have returned the entire istridhan to the complainant. It is also stated that the petitioners were joining the investigation and were cooperative. Drawing attention to the statement of the complainant recorded by the SDM it is stated that the complainant has not mentioned about any demand of dowry having been made and contended that the subsequent statement would carry not much weight. For all these reasons he prayed for grant of bail. He referred to the judgment of this court in Raj Kumar Khanna v. The State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. 2002( 1 )JCC 327; Majhar @ Papoo and Ors. v. State 2002(1)JCC 515 and Ravi Pranjya v. state 1997 JCC 123 in support of his argument.

3. Learned APP for the state, however, strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. He submitted that the petitioners have not returned the full istridhan and the belongings of the complainant. He mentioned that on the very next day to the night in which the complainant was admitted in hospital in bad shape after consuming alprex tablets, the petitioners went to the bank, operated the locker and seems to have removed the jewellery. It was contended that there was no good reason for them to rush

to the bank and operate the locker as soon as the complainant was hospitalised. He argued that for effective and proper investigation of the case custodial remand of the petitioners is necessary. He admitted that petitioner No. 2 is suffering from cancer of tongue for the past over 20 years and in case she needed some treatment of the disease good hospitals were available in Delhi also and she may be taken to the hospital even after she had surrendered. According to him serious and grave allegations have been made against the conduct of the petitioners who have failed to cooperate in the investigation of the case. Drawing attention to the statement of the complainant which was recorded by the SDM he stated that very grave and serious allegations have been made by her against petitioner No. 2. He submitted that during the investigation more evidence has been collected to implicate the petitioner showing cruel treatment and harassment on account of dowry and of misappropriation of the istridhan and other articles of the complaint which are yet to be recovered from them. Lastly, it was submitted that after the protection was granted to the complaint in this case the son of the petitioner approached the Additional Sessions Judge and obtained protection on similar lines and thereafter he had absconded.

4. Strongly refuting the allegations that the son

of the petitioner is absconding counsel for petitioners pointed out that the son of the petitioners was given protection when both the parties told the court that they were trying to negotiate for an amicable settlement and further that the son of the petitioners had been grated protection, which is still in force.

5. The statement of the complainant recorded by the SDM, copy of which has been placed on record by the petitioners, and other allegations and facts pointed out by the APR at this stage pointed out to the involvement of these petitioners and their son in the commission of grave and serious offence, the statement of complainant wife recorded by SDM cannot be read in isolation. As per the materials available it appears that the petitioners and their sons had been causing mental and physical torture and harassment to the complainant which is likely to drive the complainant wife to commit suicide or cause danger to her life. It also appears that the petitioners and their son appeared before the I.O, in response to the summons for the sake of completing the formalities and have not cooperated in the investigation. The case considered in its entirety does not justify the grant of anticipatory bail as custodial interrogation seems to be necessary for proper and effective investigation of the case.

6. Petitioner No. 2 is suffering from cancer of

tongue for the past over 20 years as conceded by the APP also. The medical evidence produced by the petitioners has shown that she had been getting treatment in different hospitals and at different places in and out of India. It has not been denied that as part of her treatment she was getting chemotherapy and strong medicines. A person who is suffering from cancer and is getting such a treatment for a long time cannot be said to be in normal health to continue the treatment for such an old disease while remaining in jail. Therefore, although the allegations against her are also equally very grave and serious but in view of the present state of her health and the nature of the disease which she is suffering with, I am of the considered view that she should be granted anticipatory bail.

7. The judgment cited by counsel for the petitioners do not advance the argument of the petitioners at this stage. The investigation is in progress. In the case of Mr. Raj Kumar Khanna (supra) the court has considered the scope and ambit of Section 498A and the principles of law enunciated could be applied after the investigation is over and the charge-sheet is submitted for the prosecution of the petitioners, if any. Same is the position in the judgment in Majhar @ Papoo & others (supra). The FIR, a first information, set the law enforcing machinery in

motion and it cannot be stated that the evidence which has been collected during investigation should not be looked into because it did not find mention in the FIR. The evidence which the investigation Officer has collected and prosecution has relied upon is to be appreciated and apprised only at the trial which stage has not yet reached. As regards Ravi Pranja (supra) also the observation of the Judge was that the anticipatory bail cannot be denied merely on the ground that some dowry articles were to be recovered. It is not the case here.

8. Accordingly, in the event of the arrest of Mrs. Sudha Kaur, petitioner No. 2, she shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the IO/SHO concerned with further condition (1) that she will join the investigation as and when called by the IO; (2) that she shall surrender her passport to the IO; and (3) she will not leave the country without prior permission of the concerned Additional Sessions Judge. The prayer of the petitioner No. 1 to grant anticipatory bail is, however, rejected.

The petition stands disposed of.