Taramani Devi v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 21.09.2023 Taramani Devi .....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA ***** Present:- Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kirpal Singh Thakur, AAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.

MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.

The petitioner herein has sought the relief of anticipatory/ pre-arrest bail in the criminal case arisen out of the FIR bearing No.316 dated 27.10.2022 registered at Police Station Salhawas, District Jhajjar, under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC. 2.

Bereft of unnecessary details, the allegations, as levelled by complainant Naveen Kumar in the subject FIR, are that the marriage of his sister named Jyoti (since deceased and here-in-after to be referred as 'the victim') was solemnized with Nikku, the son of the petitioner, about 08 years prior to the date of the occurrence and since then, the petitioner and her co-accused had been harassing the victim for demanding more dowry and the petitioner had also been taunting and maltreating her (victim) for

-2bearing two daughters and due to these reasons, the victim had committed suicide by hanging herself in her matrimonial home. 3.

Status-Report has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State, by way of the affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Head Quarter, District Jhajjar.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel in this petition and have perused the file carefully. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the husband of the petitioner, i.e her co-accused named Joginder Singh, has already been extended the relief of anticipatory bail by this Court on 17.05.2023 vide the order Annexure P-3 and moreover, no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner in the above-referred FIR and the victim also did not leave any suicide-note, holding anyone responsible for constraining her to take the extreme step of ending her life and in these circumstances, the petitioner deserves the relief, as prayed for in the present petition. 6.

Per contra, learned State counsel argues that the complainant has levelled categoric allegations against the petitioner in the said FIR and keeping in view the nature of the crime committed by her (petitioner), this bail petition be dismissed.

7.

As regards the contention qua no specific allegation having been levelled against the petitioner in the FIR, a bare perusal of the same, i.e Annexure P-1, reveals that the complainant has categorically alleged therein that the petitioner used to harass and maltreat the victim to demand more dowry and also for her (victim's) having borne two daughters.

-38.

So far as the contention regarding the grant of concession of anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench to the afore-named co-accused of the petitioner vide the order Annexure P-3 is concerned, the same is of no avail to the petitioner because it has categorically been observed therein that there was no specific allegation against the said co-accused (petitioner therein) but as discussed in the preceding paragraph, the complainant has levelled categoric allegations against the petitioner in the subject FIR. 9.

Further, the contention qua the victim having not left any suicide-note and its effect on the case of the prosecution, can and shall be looked into and adjudicated upon by the trial Court at the appropriate stage, after appreciating and evaluating the evidence that may be led on the record during the course of the trial and the same cannot be decided at the stage of dealing with this petition.

10.

Keeping in view the above-discussed facts and circumstances as well as the gravity of the crime as alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that she (petitioner) does not deserve the relief of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail. Resultantly, the petition in hand stands dismissed accordingly. (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) September 21, 2023 JUDGE Yag Dutt Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether Reportable:

No