Shekhar Pandey And Ors. vs The State
2003 Latest Caselaw 868 Del

Citation : 2003 Latest Caselaw 868 Del
Judgement Date : 19 August, 2003

Delhi High Court

Shekhar Pandey And Ors. vs The State on 19 August, 2003

Equivalent citations: 2004 IAD Delhi 142, 108 (2003) DLT 227, I (2004) DMC 46, 2003 (71) DRJ 547, 2003 (3) JCC 1904

Author: S Agarwal

Bench: S Agarwal

JUDGMENT

S.K. Agarwal, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.193/2002, u/Ss. 498A/406 IPC, P.S. Subzi Mandi, Delhi.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is husband, petitioner No.2 is father-in-law, petitioner No.3 is mother-in-law and petitioner Nos.4-6 are unmarried sisters-in-law of the complainant; allegations against them are totally false and nothing incriminating is to be recovered from them or at their instance. He further submits that petitioners have participated in the investigation, therefore, they may be released on bail. Learned counsel for the State does not contest the fact of their participation in the investigation but submits that some articles of istridhan, including 46 tola gold jewellery is yet to be recovered, therefore, their custodial interrogation is required.

3. There is a general tendency to involve almost all the family members of in-laws, even distant relations, when even there is matrimonial discord, either out of vengeance or with a view to create pressure to achieve a 'suitable' settlement. On the one hand, it is true that when the case put forward by the prosecution that articles of Istridhan, particularly jewellery, are yet to be recovered, the investigation cannot be throttled by refusing custodial interrogation, but it is equally true that all the relations cannot be permitted to undergo the trauma of custodial interrogation, on a mere request of the prosecution. In all such cases, the court has to strike a reasonable balance.

4. Here, admittedly, petitioners have participated in the investigation. In the facts and circumstances of this case, petitioner Nos.2 to 6, being father-in-law, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of the complainant, in the event of their arrest, are ordered to be released on bail on each of them furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/SHO.

5. So far as, the case of petitioner No.1-Shekhar Pandey @ Chander Shekhar (husband of the complainant) is concerned, since articles of Istridhan are yet to be recovered, no case for grant of anticipatory bail to him, is made out.

6. Petition stands disposed of.

7. dusty.