The court applied Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners based on the lack of prior reports or complaints, improbability of the allegations, and absence of evidence of taking away 'Stridhan'.

1. - This bail application under Section 438 Cr.RC. has been filed on behalf of petitioners Shyam Sunder, Smt. Santosh and Jai Prakash against whom investigation for the offences under Section 406 and 498-A I.RC. is pending at Police Station Kotwali, Churu in F.I.R. No. 381/2001. The petitioners are father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law (Dewar) respectively of complainant Smt. Manju. It is alleged in the complaint that petitioner No.1 and 2 demanded a scooter, a colour T.V. and Rs.50,000./- cash from the complainant and her father for keeping her in their house as wife of Pradeep and they have not returned the 'Stridhan' of the complainant which was given to her at the time of her marriage despite demands after refusal to keep her with them.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that this false story has been concocted and they have been falsely implicated in this case in order to humiliate, harass and spite them. According to him, no report or complaint to any public authority has been made during the long nine years although, it is alleged that soon after the marriage the demand of cash of Rs.30,000/-, a scooter and a colour T.V. was started to be made continually which by itself renders the story improbable and unbelievable. He has also submitted that as per the prosecution story, she was deserted since 1998 and still neither report has been lodged nor any application for maintenance or restitution of conjugal rights etc. has been filed by the complainant. He has also submitted that she is said to be living separately in the house of her in-laws in Churu and the 'Stridhan', if any, must be with her in that house because there is no allegation that the petitioners have taken way her 'Stridhan from that house. He has, therefore, urged that the petitioners may be released on bail.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant have both vehemently opposed this bail application and have submitted that from the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC the prosecution story is supported and therefore the petitioners may not be released on bail.

4. Having considered the rival submissions made at the bar and upon a careful and thorough perusal of the case diary and particularly the opinion recorded by the learned A.PP about the liability and involvement of these petitioners and having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, I find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. In the result, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that petitioners namely, Shyam Sunder, Smt. Santosh and Jai Prakash be released by the concerned SHO/IO on bail in the event of their arrest on their furnishing a personal bond each in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO/investigating Officer with the following conditions -

1. that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

2. that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

3. that the petitioners shall not leave India without the pri6r permission of the Court.
Bail application allowed.

*******