Banti Devi Vs State of Hp

2024:HHC:8548

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MP (M) Nos.1793, 1794, 1795, 1796 and 1797 of 2024. Reserved on: 22.08.2024. Date of Decision: 12.09.2024.

1.	Cr.MP(M) No. 1793 of 2024
	Dharampal	...Petitioner
	Versus
	State of Himachal Pradesh	...Respondent
2.	Cr.MP(M) No.1794 of 2024
	Banti Devi	...Petitioner
	Versus
	State of Himachal Pradesh	...Respondent
3.	Cr.MP(M) No. 1795 of 2024
	Jai Dei	...Petitioner
	Versus
	State of Himachal Pradesh	...Respondent
4.	Cr.MP(M) No 1796 of 2024
	Jagdish Chand	...Petitioner
	Versus
	State of Himachal Pradesh	...Respondent

¶5

2

¶6

2024:HHC:8548

¶7

5. Cr.MP(M) No.1797 of 2024

¶8

Amar Chand ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent

¶9

Coram

¶10

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Rai, Advocate in all the petitions. For the Respondent/State : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General in all the petitions.

¶11

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶12

The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that F.I.R. No. 30 of 2024, dated 13.04.2024, was registered at Police Station Arki, District Solan, H.P. against the petitioners for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. The marriage of petitioner-Dharampal was solemnized with late Smt. Pooja Devi on 22.09.2018. One son was born to them. The petitioners took care of deceased Pooja when she delivered the child and bore all

¶13

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶14

3

¶15

2024:HHC:8548

¶16

the expenses. Deceased Pooja was taking treatment for a Psychiatric disorder. She had even thrown the baby and the doctor had to stitch him for the injuries sustained by him. The deceased was residing with her husband and his parents. The other family members were residing separately. The motherin-law of the deceased had fractured her backbone and the father-in-law of the deceased is a patient of Tuberculosis. The husband of the deceased is the only earning member of the family. There was no one to take care of the deceased in her matrimonial home. The deceased used to reside in her parental home in the absence of her husband. The mother-in-law of the deceased informed the husband of the deceased on 10.02.2024 that the deceased was unwell and was taken to IGMC, Shimla for treatment. The deceased went to her maternal home after returning from Shimla. The husband of the deceased received a phone call from the father of the deceased on 07.03.2024 that the deceased was burnt by the fire of the wood stove. She was being taken to AIIMS at Bilaspur. The husband of the deceased proceeded towards Bilaspur but he received a message on the way that the deceased was referred to PGI Chandigarh. He went to PGI Chandigarh where the deceased was admitted. He spent

¶17

4

¶18

2024:HHC:8548

¶19

money on the treatment of the deceased. The deceased remained admitted in the hospital for about four months. The husband of the deceased had taken money from the owner of the hotel where he was employed. When he was going to his home on 05.04.2024, the parents of the deceased demanded money from him but he was unable to provide financial assistance as he was left with no money. This annoyed the parents of the deceased. Pooja was discharged and she died on 10.08.2024. The petitioners have nothing to do with the death of Pooja. She was in her maternal home at the time of sustaining burn injury. The petitioners are innocent. They are law-abiding citizens. They would abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. Hence it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on prearrest bail.

¶20

The petitions are opposed by filing separate status reports asserting that the father of the deceased made a complaint that deceased Pooja was being harassed by her husband and his relatives. She was not being provided with any maintenance. Her father-in-law Amar Chand, mother-in-law Banti Devi, brother-in-law Jagdish and his wife Jai Dei used to

¶21

5

¶22

2024:HHC:8548

¶23

harass the deceased. They had turned the deceased out of her matrimonial home. Her father-in-law had beaten the deceased three to four times. She was left in her paternal home on 29.02. 2024 by her husband. He assured the deceased to take her after four to five days, but when the deceased called her husband, he told her that he would not take her with him. He also asked the deceased to commit suicide so that he could marry again. The deceased attempted to commit suicide due to harassment of her husband and his relatives. The police registered the F.I.R. The deceased was discharged from PGI and she made a statement on 05.08.2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate Arki, District Solan, H.P. complaining about the harassment by her husband and his family members. She subsequently succumbed to her injuries and Section 306 of IPC was added. It was found after investigation that Amar Chand, father-in-law and Dharampal husband of the deceased used to beat her. Her brother-in-law Jagdish, sister-in-law Jai Dei and mother-in-law Banti Devi also used to harass her physically and mentally. They did not provide any food to her. They used to demand dowry and when the deceased was unable to meet this demand, they used to beat her. Once Amar Chand, father-in-law of the deceased demanded

¶24

6

¶25

2024:HHC:8548

¶26

a fridge and when he (informant) could not provide the fridge, he (Amar Chand), asked him to provide an old fridge as per his capacity. The deceased had asked her husband to take her with him but he declined and asked her to commit suicide. Bimla Devi and Uma Devi, the neighbours of the deceased have supported the version regarding the harassment of the deceased. The petitioners absconded after the registration of the FIR. The petitioners are to be interrogated to determine the circumstances, in which the deceased was compelled to commit suicide. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petitions be dismissed.

¶27

I have heard Mr. Rajiv Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

¶28

Mr. Rajiv Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. The husband of the deceased and his family members took care of the deceased. The parents of petitioner Dharampal are suffering from various ailments and they could not keep a watch over the deceased therefore, the deceased was

¶29

7

¶30

2024:HHC:8548

¶31

residing in her parental home. She has sustained burnt injuries

¶32

in her parental home for which the petitioners cannot be held liable. Therefore, he prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.

¶33

Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent State submitted that the petitioners are involved in the commission of heinous offence. The deceased had made a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that she was compelled to commit suicide due to the behaviour of her husband and his relatives. The neighbours of the petitioners have corroborated the version of the informant that the deceased was being harassed. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary to unearth the truth; therefore, he prayed that the present petitions be dismissed.

¶34

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶35

It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 (9) SCC 24 that

¶36

the power of pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It was observed:

¶37

8

¶38

2024:HHC:8548

¶39

“67. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; the possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for the grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy.”

¶40

8 . This position was reiterated in Srikant Upadhyay v. State

¶41

of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282 wherein it was held:

¶42

“25. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion of the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to a miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section

¶43

9

¶44

2024:HHC:8548

¶45

is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases.”

¶46

It was held in Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana,

¶47

(2023) 8 SCC 181: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 785 that the Courts should balance individual rights, public interest and fair investigation while considering an application for pre-arrest bail. It was observed:

¶48

“21. The relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tightrope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome.”

¶49

In the present case, the deceased had made a statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the learned

¶50

Judicial Magistrate, Arki, District Solan, H.P. that she was being harassed by the petitioners. She was beaten. The petitioners used to say what was provided by the father of the deceased. The deceased attempted to commit suicide by putting herself on

¶51

10

¶52

2024:HHC:8548

¶53

fire on 07.03.2024. This statement made by the deceased regarding the circumstances surrounding her death prima facie shows that the petitioners were harassing the deceased and she was left with no other option but to commit suicide.

¶54

Bimla Devi and Uma Devi, the neighbours of the petitioners, have also stated that Amar Chand, father-in-law and Dharam Pal, husband of the deceased used to beat her. Brother-in-law, sister-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased also used to harass her physically as well as mentally. No food was being provided to her. Prima facie , these statements have to be believed as correct. Bimla Devi and Uma Devi are the neighbours of the petitioners and the best persons to know about the happenings in their neighbourhood. Thus, the petitioners are prima facie involved in the commission of offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶55

A heavy reliance was placed upon the prescription slip attached to the petition bearing Cr.MP(M) No. 1793 of 2024. This prescription slip is dated 22.06.2020, four years ago and as per the slip, it was a case of Postpartum Psychosis. The

¶56

11

¶57

2024:HHC:8548

¶58

treatment taken about 4 years before the death of the deceased will not help the petitioners.

¶59

A reliance was also placed upon the OPD slip dated 19.02.2024, in which some medicines have been prescribed by the psychiatry department. The diagnosis reads that the deceased was suffering from sadness for one week and she had reduced sleep. The medicines were prescribed and a follow-up was advised after three weeks.

¶60

This document will not assist the petitioners. It only shows that the deceased was suffering from sadness and reduced sleep. The doctor had not described it to be a clinical depression. The deceased had made a statement regarding her harassment by petitioners and the neighbours of the petitioners corroborated her version; thus, it cannot be said that the deceased had committed suicide due to sadness or reduced sleep.

¶61

The offence alleged against the petitioners is heinous. They demanded the dowry from the deceased and when she was unable to provide the same, she was beaten and deprived of food. She had to commit suicide to escape from the

¶62

12

¶63

2024:HHC:8548

¶64

petitioners. Thus, the nature of the offence is such that would disentitle the petitioners from the concession of the bail.

¶65

It was submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and the manner of its commission, the plea of the police that custodial interrogation is required appears to be justified. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Versus Anil Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187 that where custodial interrogation is required, pre-arrest bail should not be granted. It was observed: -

¶66

“6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitationorientated than questioning a suspect who is wellensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of

¶67

13

¶68

2024:HHC:8548

¶69

disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as 7. A similar view was taken by the Delhi High Court in Mukesh Khurana v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1032 wherein it was observed:

¶70

“13. One of the significant factors in determining this question would be the need for custodial interrogation. Without a doubt, custodial interrogation is more effective to question a suspect. The cocoon of protection, afforded by a bail order insulates the suspect and he could thwart interrogation reducing it to futile rituals. But it must be also kept in mind, that while interrogation of a suspect is one of the basic and effective methods of crime solving, the liberty of an individual also needs to be balanced out.”

¶71

It was held in P Chidambaram (supra) that the grant

¶72

of pre-arrest bail may hamper the investigations. It was observed:

¶73

“83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knew that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.”

¶74

14

¶75

2024:HHC:8548

¶76