ORDER
S.C. Mital, J.
1. The above petitions pertain to the same FIR No. 204/96 Police Station, Hiranmagari, District-Udaipur under Section 438, Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur rejected the bail petition under Section 438, Cr.P.C. of petitioners No. 1 to 4 of Petition No. 20667 96 on 21 -8-1996 and bail of petitioners of Petition No. 2184/96 was rejected on 30-8-1996. Now the petitioners have approached this Court for anticipatory bail.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these petitions are that Smt. Sandhya daughter of Harisingh was married to Mahendra Singh son of Shri Nathusingh on 5-6-93 at Udaipur. Shri Harisingh lodged a report on 27-5-96 that after some days of the marriage of her daughter, her husband Mahendra Singh, father-in-law Nathusingh, sisters-in-law Paras Kanwar, Prakash Kanwar, Kalyan Kanwar, Sushri Rajni and mother-in-law Janak Kanwar treated her with cruelly for the demand of dowry i.e. gold and cloths. Two sons-in-law of Nathusingh named Narainsingh and Nathusingh son of Kaludan abetted them to subject her to cruelly. Poison was also given to Sandhya on 23-9-95 and she was admitted to hospital. A case under Sections 406 and 498A, IPC has been registered and it is under investigation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that a false report has been lodged against all the members of the family of Nathusingh. Mahendra Singh is having business in Madras and Smt. Sandhya went to Madras with him and lived at Madras. The other members of the family live at Borunda, Ajmer and Bhadras (Badmer). Narainsingh and Nathusingh son of Kaludan are sons-in-law of Nathusingh and living at Ajmer and Borunda. In fact Smt. Sandhya maltreated the petitioner and other members of the family in November 1994. She was taken to her father’s house by Nathusingh. She came back in September 1995 to Madras with her uncle. Smt. Sandhya could not adjust with Mahendra Singh and tried to put him in trouble and herself took poison twice. The matter was reported to police on 23-9-95 by Mahendra Singh and he got her admitted in a hospital also. Sandhya gave the statement that she did not want to stay with Mahendra Singh when Nathusingh went to Madras she insulted him and also threatened to implicate all the members of the family in a false dowry case. Sandhya went to Udaipur with his father on 30-9-95 and never returned to the house of Mahendrasingh.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Shri Mahendra singh has filed a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act in Madras for seeking divorce which is pending in that Court. After that in order to harass and implicate all the members of the family in a false case now the report has been filed alleging demand of dowry and cruelty on 27-5-96. This report is absolutely concocted and mala fide for pressurising her husband and other members of the family. There is no question of harassment by, the petitioners because she lived with her husband Mahendra Singh at Madras. There are no reasonable grounds against the petitioners to have committed alleged offences. It was also argued that P. S. Hiranmagari, Udaipur has no jurisdiction to entertain the FIR and to investigate the case because no cruelty or misappropriation was committed at Udaipur as per the contents of the FIR. Nathusingh son of Kaludan is living at Borunda carrying on business there. Narainsingh is in the service of Railways and is living at Ajmer for last 10 years. It is, therefore, vehemently argued that in the above facts and circumstances, petitioners may be released on anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that the petitioners are not interested in keeping any article whatever given in the marriage and are prepared to return the same whenever it is so arranged by the Investigation Officer. They are also prepared to pay back the money to the informant Harisingh.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor argued that there are clear allegations in the FIR about cruelty to Sandhya for the demand of dowry. The articles given at the time of marriage have not been returned and there are strong grounds about commission of offence under Sections 498A and 406, IPC against the petitioners. Other members of the family have abetted Mahendra Singh to treat Sandhya with cruelty for the demand of dowry. There is no reason that Sandhya would take poison herself. It was due to the cruelty to Sandhya, it became impossible for her to stay at Madras. Sandhya wants to maintain her family ties and not the divorce but her husband Mahendra Singh-petitioner has filed divorce petition simply because her father could not fulfil their demand for gold and cloths. The letter which has been written by Sandhya reveals that she has been treated with cruelty and her husband Mahendra Singh-petitioner does not want to live with Sandhya. It is further argued that the petitioner and his father is rich family engaged in business and offer of giving money back or the articles, goes to show that they did not want Sandhya to lead her matrimonial life and to get rid of her by all means. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred 1996 (1) RCD 256 (Raj) (Chanda (Smt.) w/o Hiralal v. State of Rajasthan) in which a divorce petition was filed against the wife and after receipt of notice of the divorce petition she initiated proceedings under Sections 406 and 498A, IPC against the applicants. In the overall facts and circumstances of the case the applicants were released on bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. Learned Public Prosecutor refuted the arguments on behalf of the petitioner that the report by Hariram has been filed as counter blast or to pressurize the petitioners.
6. I have gone through the case diary and statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. It will not be proper to appreciate the statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. or to express any (opinion) at this stage.
7. Without expressing any opinion about the merits of the case but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I am inclined to accept the bail petition filed by all the petitioners except Mahendra Singh. Accordingly, I direct that petitioners Smt. Prakash Kunwar, Narainsingh, Janak Kunwar, Nathusingh, Kalyan Kanwar and Nathusingh son of Hardansingh be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rupees 10,0007- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigation Officer, P. S. Hiranmagari, Udaipur in FIR case No. 204/96 for appearance before him and as and when called upon to (do) so. This bail shall be subject to the following conditions:-
1. That they shall make themselves available for interrogation by Police Officer as and when required.
2. That they 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer.
3. That they shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.