NIRMALA DEVI VS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH  CR.M.P NO 1153 OF 2018

Citation	Cr.M.P.No.1153 of 2018
Date of Judgment	14th September 2018
Court	Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Type	Criminal miscellaneous petitions
Petitioner	Nirmala Devi
Respondent	State of Himachal Pradesh
Bench	Honourable Mr. Chauhan
Referred	Section- 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C 1973 and Section 34 498-A, 306,304-B of IPC 1860

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner has sought regular bail in the case FIR No. 120/2018, registered at Police Station, BSL Colony, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, on 10^th August 2018. The charges against the petitioner include Sections 498-A (cruelty to a woman by her husband or his relatives), 306 (abetment of suicide), 304-B (dowry death) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case was initiated based on a report received by the police from Ram Dei, who informed them about her daughter-in-law Kumari Kalpana’s suicide by hanging herself in a room. Ram Dei requested the police to visit the spot and conduct the legal proceedings. A police party, led by SI/SHO of the BSL Colony Police Station, Sunder Nagar, visited the scene and recorded statements.

In the statement, Surinder Singh alleged that the deceased, Kalpana Kumari, was his daughter and had been married to Amar Singh in January 2013. Amar Singh was working in Uttarakhand, and Kalpana was a Veterinary Pharmacist whose services were recently regularized. She had been transferred to Poultry Farm, Sunder Nagar, from Dhundan in District Solan.

Surinder Singh claimed that his daughter had complained several times about mental harassment and torture by her mother-in-law, sisters-in-law (petitioners), and their husbands, alleging that they demanded dowry and money from her.

The petitioner, along with other family members, had quarrels with Kalpana, and they allegedly raised illegal and unjustified demands for dowry. On the day of the incident, Surinder Singh was informed by his brother-in-law (Sadu) Yoginder Singh that Amar Singh had informed him about Kalpana Kumari’s suicide due to mental harassment.

The petitioner was arrested, and as a result, filed this regular bail petition.

ISSUES 

The primary issue in this case is whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail or not ?

The court needs to determine whether the allegations against the petitioner are grave enough to deny bail or whether petitioner can be released on bail pending trial. The case involves serious charges, including cruelty, abetment of suicide, and dowry death, which are punishable offenses and non- Bailable offenses.

ARGUMENTS

In this case, the petitioner has sought regular bail in FIR No.120/2018, registered at Police Station, BSL Colony, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., on 10.08.2018, under Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased, Kumari Kalpana, had allegedly committed suicide by hanging herself in a room, and her mother-in-law (petitioner) and other family members were accused of mentally harassing and torturing her on account of not bringing sufficient dowry at the time of marriage.

The petitioner argued that she would cooperate with the investigation and appear in court as required. Moreover, she contended that she had a right to be released on bail since she had not been convicted yet, and keeping her in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioner was arrested and, therefore, filed this regular bail petition.

On the other hand, The learned Additional Advocate General argued that the allegations against the petitioner were serious, and she should not be released on bail. Her release on bail might obstruct the investigation and tamper with the witnesses. The prosecutor emphasized the severity of the charges and the need to maintain the dignity of the deceased’s life.

  However, the defense contended that the petitioner should be granted bail as there is no evidence to suggest her involvement in the alleged offenses. They highlighted the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding the grant of bail, emphasizing that the presumption of innocence should be upheld, and bail should not be denied merely on the seriousness of the allegations.

JUDGMENT 

The court, after considering the arguments and examining the principles laid down by previous judgments, granted bail to the petitioner. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the charges but emphasized the presumption of innocence at the pre-conviction stage. The court held that the object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure their availability for trial and that there was no reason to doubt the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate with the investigation or trial.

The court also took into account the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another (2014) 8 SCC 273, which directed that arrest should not be an automatic response in cases involving Section 498-A IPC. The court highlighted that the police should satisfy themselves about the necessity of arrest and that the custody should not be a punitive or preventative measure.

The court observed that there was nothing on record to suggest that the deceased had ever made any complaints about the alleged harassment before the unfortunate incident. It further noted that the prosecution did not allege that the petitioner would hamper the investigation or obstruct justice if released on bail. Hence, the court held that refusing bail to the petitioner would be a travesty of justice.

The court ordered the petitioner’s release on bail on certain conditions, including attending court proceedings, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, and seeking prior permission before leaving the country. The court also clarified that its observations should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, and the trial court should decide the matter impartially.

CONCLUSION 

The court granted regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.120/2018. The judgment was based on the presumption of innocence, absence of specific allegations against the petitioner, and the need to balance personal liberty with the state’s Interest in fair investigation and trial. The court emphasized that pre-trial detention should not be used as a form of punishment and that bail conditions could be imposed to ensure the accused’s cooperation with the legal proceedings. While acknowledging the seriousness of the accusations, the court believed that it would be unjust to deny bail to the petitioner, considering the presumption of innocence and the right to personal liberty. The court noted that there was no indication that the petitioner would impede the investigation or the trial, and stringent conditions could be imposed to ensure her cooperation with the legal proceedings. The judge’s reasoning was influenced by the established principles and guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in similar cases.

REFERENCES

https://indiankanoon.org

This Article is written by B S BADRINATH of  university law college,Intern at Legal Vidhiya.