High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 02 SHI CK 0041

Kiran Bala vs State of Himachal Pradesh

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 28 February 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kuldip Singh, J
CASE NUMBER
Cr.M.P. (M) No. 110 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 652 words

Kuldip Singh, J.—This is an application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 240/2011 dated 18.10.2011, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Nahan under Sections 498A, 328, 307, 34 IPC. It has been submitted that petitioner had applied for grant of bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur which was rejected on 24.1.2012. The petitioner is an old woman suffering from various ailments. The petitioner remained admitted in hospital from 24.1.2012 to 30.1.2012. The petitioner is innocent, she has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is not in good terms with his son and the complainant. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in the case on account of registration of the case. It has been stated that petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The submission has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C.

2.

The status report has been filed. It has been stated that there are in all three accused namely Navpreet, Akashdeep and Kiran Bala ( petitioner). The two other accused have already been released on bail. The learned Addl. Advocate General has stated that investigation in the case is complete and only challan is to be prepared. The case has been registered on the statement of Mamta recorded u/s 154 Cr.P.C. She has stated that she was married on 19.9.2010 with Navpreet. She has alleged that after about 20 days of marriage her husband Navpreet started quarreling with her on small matters. He started demanding dowry but with the intervention of the relatives the matter was sorted out between her and her husband. She has alleged that petitioner had threatened that she would not allow the complainant to live in the matrimonial home.

3.

On 17.10.2011 Navpreet started quarreling with the complainant. The mother-in-law and husband of the complainant gave her beatings. She has alleged that her mother-in-law and husband put something liquid in her mouth, she fell down and became unconscious. She was taken to hospital and then to Chandigarh for treatment. On this case has been registered. It has come in the investigation that the doctor in MLC has opined that as per SFSL report traces of HCL were detected.

4.

The complainant has alleged that petitioner and her husband put some liquid in her mouth and thereafter she became unconscious. The husband of the petitioner has already been released on bail. It has not been pointed out that alleged part played by the petitioner is more serious then the part played by the husband of the complainant for the commission of offence. It appears from the medical slip that petitioner remained admitted in hospital for some time from 24.1.2012 to 30.1.2012. The investigation in the case is complete. There is no allegations in the status report that petitioner is not co-operating in the investigation. The petitioner is woman and therefore, she is entitled to special consideration u/s 437 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of bail. The petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail.

5.

In view of above, in the event of arrest of petitioner in FIR No. 240/2011 dated 18.10.2011, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Nahan under Sections 498A, 328, 307, 34 IPC, she is order to be released on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the condition that the petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. The petitioner being a woman shall be interrogated strictly in accordance with law. The observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the bail application and it shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.