Rama Sood vs State Of H.P
2023 Latest Caselaw 5824 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) Nos. 1089, 1090 & 1091 of

.

Reserved on: 11.5.2023

Date of decision: 15.5.2023.

    1.   Cr.MP(M) No. 1089 of 2023
         Rama Sood                                                 ...Petitioner.





                                 Versus
         State of H.P.                                            ...Respondent

    2.   Cr.MP(M) No. 1090 of 2023


         Deepak Sood                                              ...Petitioner

                                 Versus


         State of H.P.                                            ...Respondent.

    3.   Cr.MP(M) No. 1091 of 2023




         Kiran Sood                                               ...petitioner





                                 Versus





         State of H.P.                                            ...Respondent.

    Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Ankush Chauhan, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick Additional Advocate General.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Mr. Lakshay Parihar, Advocate, for the complainant.

.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge

All these petitions have been heard and are

being decided together, as these arise out of the same FIR

and involved identical question of facts and law.

2. Petitioners have prayed for grant of pre-

arrest bail in case FIR No. 9 of 2023 dated 13.4.2023,

registered under Sections 498A, 504 and 34 IPC at Mahila

Police Station, BCS, District Shimla, H.P. on the complaint

dated 13.4.2023, made by one Archna Sharma. She has

alleged that her marriage was solemnized with Sumit Sood

on 26.4.2021. Petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 1090 of 2023 is

the father of Sumit Sood, petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 1089

of 2023 is the mother and petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No. 1091

of 2023 is the sister of Sumit Sood. It is alleged in the

complaint that just three days after the marriage, the

husband of complainant had started beating complainant

for the purpose of forcing her to use contraceptive. Since

October, 2022, he had started manhandling the

complainant for the demand of car and dowry. Against her

mother-in-law, the complainant has alleged that she had

always insisted that complainant would not be allowed to

.

bear child for two years. Allegations of misbehave, demand

of dowry have been made against the petitioners, besides

husband of complainant.

3. Petitioners have contended that the allegations

leveled by complainant are totally false. The complainant

already has approached the Court with a complaint under

the Protection of Women for Domestic Violence Act against

them. It is further submitted that the petitioners have

been joining investigation as and when required to do so.

No recovery is to be effected from them. Petitioners are

permanent resident of Panchwati Building, 2nd Floor, Shiv

Puri, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. and there is no

apprehension or likelihood of their absconding from the

course of justice. Petitioners have undertaken to join

investigation in future also, if so required.

4. The prayer has been opposed on behalf of the

respondent-State on the ground that the husband of

complainant is working in France. Petitioners are not

providing his correct whereabouts and further investigation

cannot be carried till the husband of complainant joins the

investigation.

.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

have also gone through the record carefully.

6. The contents of complaint reveal that the

allegation of demand of dowry and harassment against

petitioners are general and vague in nature.

incident has been highlighted or elaborated. Be that as it r Specific

may, the allegations are subject to proof.

7. The case was registered on 13.4.2023 and police

already has got sufficient time to investigate the matter.

Petitioners were admitted to interim bail on 4.5.2023. It is

not the case that petitioners had absconded before

applying for pre-arrest bail. No reason has been assigned

by the respondent for not arresting the petitioners till

4.5.2023 after registration of case. Apparently, their arrest

was not required. Compliance under Section 41A Cr.P.C.

has also not been shown.

8. There is no allegations against the petitioners

that they have not associated themselves with investigation

as and when required. Petitioners are permanent residents

of Panchwati Building, 2nd Floor, Shiv Puri, Tehsil and

District Shimla, H.P. and there is no apprehension of their

.

absconding or fleeing from the course of justice. It is not a

case where custodial interrogation of petitioners is

warranted. Even the respondent has not made any such

prayer.

9.

The only reason for opposing the bail is that the

petitioners are not disclosing the address of husband of

complainant. In my considered view, the bail cannot be

denied on such a frivolous ground. It cannot be believed

that the complainant is not having the address or

whereabouts of her husband. It is mentioned in the

complaint itself that complainant had also visited France.

In any case, in the present era, the whereabouts of a

person, especially in a foreign country can be easily

ascertained.

10. In the given facts and circumstances of the case,

petitions are allowed and in the event of arrest of the

petitioners in case FIR No. 9 of 2023 dated 13.4.2023,

registered under Sections 498A, 504 and 34 IPC at Mahila

Police Station, BCS, District Shimla, H.P., they shall be

released on bail, on their furnishing personal bond in the

sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety in the like

.

amount each to the satisfaction of Investigating

Officer/Arresting Officer. This order shall be subject to

following conditions: -

i) That the petitioners shall make themselves

available to the police or any other Investigating

Agency or Court in the present case as and

when required;

ii) That the petitioners shall not directly or

indirectly make any inducement, threat or

promise to any person acquainted with the facts

of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing

such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

iii) That breach of any of the bail condition by the

petitioners shall entail cancellation of the bail.

iv) That the petitioners shall not leave India without

prior permission of the Court.

11. Any observation made herein above shall not be

taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case

and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by

any observation made herein above.

.

    15th June 2023                         (Satyen Vaidya)





        (kck)                                   Judge




                 r         to