Subhash Sharma vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.—FIR 59 dated 13.2.1999 has been registered at Police Station City Kaithal under Sections 304-B/498-A, IPC on the complaint lodged by the complainant Ram Kalan before the C.J.M., Kaithal Which was forwarded to Police Station City Kaithal u/s 156(3), Cr.P.C. wherein the following allegations are found :

The daughter of the complainant by name Kamlesh was married with petitioner Subhash Sharma 6-7 years back. The petitioner, at the time of engagement had not told that he was earlier married or his wife Was killed after one year from the date of marriage or that be had contracted a second marriage which has also ended in a divorce. Kamlesh told that petitioner is having illicit relations with his Jethani-Saroj, on whose instigation, the petitioner is harassing for more dowry and gives beatings to her (Kamlesh). Five years back also, Kamlesh came to the house and said that petitioner Subhash wants to purchase a plot and requires Rs. 20,000/ -. The complainant gave Rs. 20,000/- and after 11/2 years the petitioner again started giving beatings. Kamlesh also filed an application u/s 125, Cr.P.C. against petitioner-Subhash wherein Kamlesh had mentioned about the threat to her life, but at the intervention of Panchayat, compromise was affected. Again Kamlesh came to the house in October and said that petitioner was demanding money for constructing the house. The complainant sent his son-Dhanbagh on 6.11.1998 to say that he will arrange for the money. When Saroj and Billu Ram demanded money Dhanbagh had stated that money will be arranged and paid.

On 7.11.1998, the complainant was informed by the police that Kamlesh Was lying in the hospital. The complainant and his cousin reached Kaithal and came to know that Kamlesh had died due to burning. The policeman took the complainant to the Police Station, Kaithal, got his signature on some paper but did not allow the complainant to meet his son or cousin. The complainant was kept in the police station till the evening of 8.11.1998 and in the meantime, the body of Kamlesh was cremated. The complainant was visiting the police station again and again, but no action had been taken because petitioner-Subhash is a policeman.

The petitioner approached the Session Court, Kaithal for bail, but his application for bail was dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court for bail u/s 439, Cr.P.C.

I have heard the Counsel for both the sides and perused the record on file.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that though Kamlesh had died on 7.11.1998, the present FIR (complaint) has been lodged only 13.2.1999. He also points but that apart from the undue delay, the complainant had given a statement to the police (Annexure P-2) wherein he has mentioned that his daughter-Kamlesh was cooking food, caught fire accidently, that he had no suspicion about her death, and that nobody was at fault for this occurrence.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner also points out the statement of Sukhbir-the brother of the deceased (Annexure P-3) to the same effect According to him, both these statements were made u/s 174, Cr.P.C. on 8.11.1998, and that as an after-thought, this complaint has been lodged after a long delay.

The learned Counsel for the State, of course, contended that the complainant has even alleged that the complainant was illegally confined by the police when fie went to give the complaint, that his signatures were taken on certain papers, and that in the meanwhile, the body of Kamlesh had been cremated.

Even if that be so, that is all the more reason why the complaint should have been filed immediately. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also contends that though the petitioner and Kamlesh were married for about 6-7, years, and though the petitioner is alleged to have demanded dowry, no such allegation has been made against the petitioner till after the death of Kamlesh, and therefore, it will be dear that the present allegations are only an after-thought.

Of course, the petitioner is a policeman, but even though allegations have been made that the complainant was kept in illegal confinement in the police station, that his signatures were taken in certain blank papers, and that in the meantime Kamlesh was cremated, the complainant has not immediately preferred a complaint like this to the Court and has chosen to file the complaint only in February, 1999 though Kamlesh had died in November, 1998 itself.

Therefore, taking into consideration the arguments put forward by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, but at the same time, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

Resultantly, petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Kurukshetra.