AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned SPP.
The present petitioners 1 and 3 are the brothers of accused No. 1, who was said to be the husband of the deceased Salma. It is the complainant''s case that Salma was married to accused No. 1 about 1 1/2 years prior to the incident and from day one, she was ill treated for dowry by the petitioners as well as accused No. 1. Petitioners 2 and 4 are the respective wives of petitioners 1 and 3 and that they were all together ill treating Salma. It is on that basis, a case has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 304-B and 201 of IPC. The petitioners having approached the court below seeking anticipatory bail, the same has been rejected on the footing that the matter is under investigation and since the death of the woman has occurred within a short period after the marriage, it is clearly a serious case and therefore, has rejected the application for bail.
The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that these petitioners are not living along with accused No. 1 and they had nothing to do with his matrimonial life apart from being his brothers and petitioners 2 and 4 being the sisters-in-law of accused No. 1. Further, it is stated that petitioner No. 4 is in an advanced stage of pregnancy and the fact that the matter is pending investigation, by itself cannot result in denial of relief.
As already stated, the petitioners were living away from the deceased and her husband and had nothing to do with their personal life, even the fact that the matter is still pending investigation and notwithstanding that though they were living in separate houses in village, and it was possible that there was proximity in relationships, given the fact that petitioner No. 4 is said to be in an advanced stage of pregnancy and that petitioner No. 2 the sister-in-law of accused No. 1, has an infant who needs her attention. The very fact of their relationship with the deceased would not lead to a presumption of their involvement in the commission of the alleged offences. Therefore, the petitioners 2 and 4 have made out a case for grant of relief.
Consequently, the petition is partly allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioners 2 and 4, they shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing a self bond for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- each with a solvent surety each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating officer, subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The petitioners 2 and 4 shall not seek to influence the prosecution witnesses in any manner;
(b) They shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing; and
(c) They shall co-operate with the Investigating Authority.
Insofar as petitioners 1 and 3 are concerned, their petition is disposed of with liberty to approach this Court or the court below at a later stage for regular bail in the usual course.