Sarla Sanan vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.—This is Criminal Misc. No. 31174-M of 1998 whereby Smt. Sarla Sanan-petitioner herein is claiming bail in view of her falling health and advanced age in case FIR No. 68 dated 26.4.1998 registered under Sections 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Division No. 1, Pathankot.

Vide order dated 15.9.1998 passed by this Bench in Crl. Misc. No. 18386-M of 1998, bail was refused to Smt. Sarla Sanan.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that Mamta daughter of Prof. Manohar Lal Sharma of Pathankot, was student of B.A. final. She was married Puneet son of Jagat Mohan (caste Khatri) of Jagraon in July, 1997. It was inter-caste marriage. Manohar Lal Sharma had given dowry in marriage according to his financial capacity. He had been given something or the other to her after marriage whenever Mamta went to her parents. On her visits to her parents, she had been telling them that her husband, mother-in-law Shashi Malhotra and Sarla were pressuring her to bring more dowry. On 23.4.1998 at about 6.00 p.m., Mamta came to her parents. Manohar Lal Sharma was away to Delhi. He reached Pathankot at about 8.00 a.m. on 24.4.1998. At that time Mamta told her father in the presence of his brother-in-law Subhash Chander son of Ved Parkash of Pathankot that her mother-in-law Shashi Malhotra was there at Pathankot for the last 5-6 days and since then her husband, mother-in-law and grand mother-in-law Sarla Sanan were harassing her and coercing her that she should bring colour T.V., Hero Honda Motor Cycle and Fridge from her father as her father had not given any thing in dowry. Earlier also, his daughter had told him about their demand many times. She told them even on telephone that her in-laws were harassing her for having not brought adequate dowry. She told them that her father was not very well off and he could not afford such expensive items but they did not relent and persisted in their demand saying that if she failed to bring, these items for them, matrimonial home was dosed for her. Her father sent her in the presence of Subhash Chander and his wife after advising her and boosting her morale that he alongwith respectables would be coming to her in-laws and they would talk over the matter. On 25.4.1998, Mamta rang up her father that her in-laws were not talking to her and they, had boycotted her. Thereupon, Mamta''s mother advised her that her father would be coming the following day to her in-laws and he would talk to them. On 26.4.1998 at about 11.30 a.m., he and his younger brother-in-law Ram Dass were going to the house of Mamta''s in-laws that Mukesh Kumar @ Mintu, son of Puran Chand, resident of Bajri Company met them near Baba Pir and told them that in-laws of Mamta were saying that Mamta had committed suicide by hanging herself in her bed roorn at night and that her dead body was lying in the open space (Deodhi) of the house and they were preparing to cremate the dead body. Manohar Lal Sharma alongwith his brother-in-law Ram Dass and Mukesh Kumar went to the house of in-laws of Mamta and saw the dead body of Mamta lying in the Deodhi and around her neck there was a ligature mark produced by a rope and there were marks on both ears, arms and back. Manohar Lal Sharma reported the matter to the police. Case FIR No. 68 was registered at P.S. Division No. 1, Pathankot under Sections 304-B/34, Indian Penal Code on 26.4.1998.

Petitioner''s prayer for bail was declined on merits vide order dated 15.9.1998 ibid and therefore her prayer for bail cannot be considered over again on merits.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner is in falling health. She is 71/72 years old and is suffering from cancer. She was treated for cancer earlier in 1985. She is heart patient and is getting regular treatment at PGI. The petitioner is on interim bail since 10.10.1998. Now the question arises whether the interim bail granted to her should or should not be made absolute on account of her alleged falling health. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the year 1985, she underwent radio therapy for carcinoma cervix. He further submitted that she is a chronic case of Ischemic Heart Disease and and Congestive Heart Failure. She is quite an advanced case of Cardiac Disease which needs further evaluation by eccho/colour doppler and requires monitoring as per the opinion of the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur. He further submitted that at PGI in October, 1998, her heart valve was found shrunken. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that she is still under treatment. She is being treated as per the advice of PGI doctor.

Be that as it may, petitioner is old and is in falling health. If she is kept in jail, her health will deteriorate. Law treats women, old and infirm on a different pedestal in the matter of grant of bail vis-a-vis others. So, this Crl. Misc. Petition is allowed. The interim jail allowed to the petitioner is made absolute and it will continue till the trial is over.