Krishan v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION :- July 31, 2018 Krishan

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN Present:- Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Bansal, AAG, Haryana.

*** This petition for regular bail has been filed by petitioner Krishan, an accused in F.I.R. No. 257 dated 12.7.2017 for offences under Sections 304B, 498A, 34 IPC registered with Police Station Murthal, District Sonepat.

Briefly stated the facts of the case as per prosecution story are that complainant Mahipal son of Sh. Bhim Singh resident of village Mahara, District Sonepat had submitted a written complaint dated 12.7.2017 addressed to SHO Police Station Murthal stating therein that his elder daughter Diksha was married with Rohit on 18.2.2017 and at that time he had given sufficient dowry articles but soon after the marriage his daughter was being harassed by her husband Rohit, father-in-law Krishan, mother-in-law and sister in law Indu for having brought insufficient dowry and they raised demand of more dowry from her. Diksha used to convey all these things to her father-the complainant whenever she visited her parental

home. She further informed that her husband and his family members used to give beatings to her. Interalia in the complaint it is stated that a few days earlier when complainant went to meet his daughter then Rohit and his family members demanded money from them and he gave Rs.20,000/- so that Diksha could settle down in the matrimonial home. However, on 12.7.2017 Krishan father-in-law of Diksha asked the complainant to come since Diksha was ill; that he went to Nidan Hospital; that his daughter had died having ligature marks on the body. The complainant has stated that either his daughter had been killed or hanged or she was compelled to commit suicide by her husband and members of his family on account of insufficient dowry.

On the basis of that complaint formal F.I.R. for offence under Section 498, 304-B read with Section 34 IPC was registered. Accused-petitioner was arrested in this case on 14.7.2017. He had moved an application for grant of regular bail to the Court of Sessions which was assigned to Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Sonepat, who vide order dated 10.10.2017 dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the similar relief, notice of which was given to the State. State counsel has resisted the application for grant of bail. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State counsel besides going through the record.

I do not find any merit in the petition. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and specific allegations of harassment and torture at the hands of petitioner-accused and his other co-accused of the deceased are there.

The girl had died within a few months of her marriage. After completion of investigation challan against the accused have been filed and the trial is going on which is likely to be concluded in near future. Therefore, no case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner is made out. The petition in that regard stands dismissed. However, while parting with the discussion, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of six months by giving short adjournments. State counsel is directed to ensure the appearance of PWs in the Court on each and every date of hearing and their statements be got recorded on the date fixed.

(H.S. MADAAN) JUDGE July 31, 2018 p.singh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No