- (1.) C R M-4266 of 2016 Allowed as prayed for. This application is for placing on record Annexures R-1 to R-6. Application is allowed and Annexures R-1 to R-6 are taken on record. This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, namely, Ashok and Raj Devi, in case FIR No.63 dated 10.12.2015 registered under Sections 376, 406, 417, 493, 494, 495 and 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Women, Bhiwani Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case whereas no offence is made out against them. The marriage of son of the petitioners with complainant-Mamta Sharma was solemnized on 14.07.2013 and a girl child was also born out of said wedlock. It was a simple marriage and no dowry was given. The petitioners were having no role as it was love marriage. The petitioners were not aware about the fact that earlier their son got married with one Preeti Sharma, who is the daughter of his maternal aunt (Massi) six months prior to the marriage of accused-Mukesh with the complainant. It was a void marriage. Learned counsel also submits that the complainant was adamant to take divorce from said Preeti Sharma and a petition for dissolution of marriage was also filed, which is still pending. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon judgment of this Court in Shrimati Krishni Devi vs. Shrimati Tulsan Devi, 1972 AIR(P&H) 305 in support of his contentions.
(2.) Learned counsel for the complainant opposes grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners on the ground that the factum of earlier marriage with Preeti Sharma was not disclosed to the complainant whereas the petitioners were aware about the said marriage being in close relation of the petitioners'. The offence was committed by main accused in connivance with the petitioners. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners cannot take this plea that they were not aware about the earlier marriage whereas it has specifically been mentioned in the petition that when the petitioners came to know with regard to earlier marriage then they asked their son not to meet Preeti Sharma.
(3.) Learned State counsel also opposes grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners as they were directly involved in the case and specific allegations are levelled against them. They were aware about the earlier marriage but still it was not informed to the complainant. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the allegations levelled in the FIR and other documents available on the file. On perusal of FIR, it appears that specific allegations of demand of dowry as well as harassment are there against the petitioners. A close relative of the accused persons told that accused Mukesh has already been married and on inquiry it was found that the accused Mukesh was earlier married with Preeti Sharma on 08.10.2012. The petitioners were asked why earlier marriage was not disclosed to the complainant. Thereafter, the marriage was solemnized with the complainant in conspiracy with the present petitioners. The complainant was not aware about earlier marriage and by considering herself as legally wedded wife of accused- Mukesh, she was having physical relations with him whereas Mukesh was aware that he was married with one Preeti Sharma, due to which, offence under Section 376 IPC is made out. Not only the allegations of conspiracy in commission of offence are levelled but allegations of harassment and demand of dowry are also there against the petitioners as when the marriage with the complainant was solemnized, the factum of earlier marriage was not disclosed.;