Libertatem Magazine

Himachal Pradesh HC Grants Bail to the Accused in the Case of Alleged Domestic Violence and Death Threats 

Contents of this Page

In this case, the petitioners filed a bail petition for anticipatory bail. The Court allowed the same. Considering the facts of the case, the case concerns the arrest of the petitioners for allegedly harassing the complainant.

Brief Facts of the Case 

The case deals with the petitioners, Karan (husband) and Dharmender Begra (Father-in-law).  Herein, the petitioner no. 1, Karan married the complainant (wife). According to the complainant, her husband and his father started ill-treating her. Precisely, they started harassing and beating her.

The complainant also filed an FIR against the petitioners for their actions. Later, the parties settled the case, after an apology and promise of compromise. However, after some time, her father-in-law evicted her from the house. He did so after taking away her jewellery. Moreover, he has refused to produce them.

Her father-in-law also threatened to kill her and denied her entry in the house. Due to these events, she started living in a separate house with her husband. The complainant alleges that her husband treats her the same way as her father-in-law. On the said grounds, the complainant has filed an FIR report. As per the report, the petitioners have been charged under Section 498-A (cruelty), 504 (insult to breach peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC. These charges were read in compliance with section 34 of IPC. As a result, the petitioners filed for anticipatory bail before the Court.

Arguments Before the Court

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the jewellery retrieved belongs to the petitioner. The petitioner has bought the jewellery. This is the reason why the petitioners took them back.

Court’s Observation 

The Court observed that there is no requirement for the custody of the petitioners. It stated that their custody would not aid the investigation of the case. The Court, then, deliberated on the next issue of the ownership of jewellery. However, the Court stated that the decision whether the jewellery is “Istridhan”, would be catered as a separate issue. After assessing the facts, the Court stated that it deemed the case as fit for bail.

Court’s Judgment

On the aforesaid observation, the Court granted bail to the petitioners. The petitioners have to follow the following orders of the Court, in any case:

One, they cannot manipulate or disturb the case in any manner and misuse their liberty. Second, they have to cooperate with the police and the investigation. Third, they should not commit a similar offence. The Court also held that the bail will be ceased in case of violation of any condition. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author