JUDGMENT 1. - This bail application has been filed by one Madan Lal, the father-in-law of deceased Mst. Kanchan, A report was lodged by Babulal Sharma at Police station, Maniava on June 6,1985 at 11.30 p.m. wherein it was alleged by him that his 22 years old daughter Kanchan was married to Suresh Kumar.son of Madan Lal in 1980 and since after few days of the marriage She wat tortured as dowry was not given. It was alleged that her mother-in -law, father-in-law, sister-in-law & brother-in-law used to beat her at some time on which she came to his place and remained with him. It was thereafter that some responsible persons from Laxmangarh intervened & she had to be sent back, but even thereafter she did not remain happy despite the assurance given by her in-laws, It was stated that since after May 24, 1985 no letter was received from her for ten days and so her brother Pradeep was sent. She started weeping on meeting her brother and told that she was not being treated well and that she had been beaten. Even in the presence of Pardeep she was rebuked. He wanted to take her with him but it was refused by her in-laws.In the morning at about 7.00 a.m.his relation Mahesh Mehrish informed him about the death of his daughter in the night. He came to Mandava with his relations and then went to lodge the report. On the receipt of this report a case under section 498A IPC was registered on which investigation commenced. 2. During the investigation her postmortem was got conducted by a Board of Doctors who found some simple injuries on her person. Regarding the cause of death it was maintained that it will be given after received the report from the Chemical Examiner, Jaipur. The investigation went on and certain persons from the locality were examined. They came out with a story that on the previous night they heard the cries and later on learnt that Smt. Kanchan had been manhandled which story obviously proves to be correct as is corroborated prima facie by the postmortem report. The investigation went on and certain persons from the locality were examined. They came out with a story that on the previous night they heard the cries and later on learnt that Smt. Kanchan had been manhandled which story obviously proves to be correct as is corroborated prima facie by the postmortem report. However, simultaneously the petitioner appears to have come out with a case immediately after the incident that she was not feeling well and, therefore, she was taken to the Doctor Vishwanath who treated her and as her condition was not improving she was removed to one Doctor Megasingh who too could not control her disease and referred her to District Hospital, Sikar, but by the time they reached Navalgarh Mst. Kanchan breathed her last. The statements of the Doctors have been recorded who stated that she was taken to them for treatment and the compounder's statement is that he injected her at the instance of the Doctor. He however, is unable to say what medicine was injected. The accused was arrested on June 13, 1985 and he moved a bail application in the court or Sessions at Sikar which was rejected vide order dated June 26, 1985 as later on the case has been converted for offence under section 302 and 120B IPC besides one under section 498A IPC. Having failed before the court of Sessions this bail application was submitted in this court on July 16, 1985. This court on July 16, 1985 directed to summon the case dairy which was not received on July 24, 1985, July 29, July 31, August 2 and August 6, 1985. Thus, for almost three weeks the case diary has been kept behind and not produced before this court. When it came for hearing before Hon'ble Kapoor J, on August 9, 1985, she found it essential to know the result of the chemical Examination and for that a direction was sent to the Chemical Examiner Rajasthan, Jaipur to forward the result of the chemical analysis in F.I.R. No. 24/85 and ordered the case to be placed aft ten days. i.e., on August 19, 1985 when the matter came up before me. i.e., on August 19, 1985 when the matter came up before me. On August 19, 1985 I found that report had not been received by this court and therefore, I observed that despite the outer limit fixed the investigating authority has failed t produce the material desired and the investigation officer was summoned to explain his conduct. The case was ordered to be placed on August 22. 1985 on which date an adjournment was prayed and today it has come for hearing. 3. A letter has been received from office of the Chemical Analyst Rajasthan, Jaipur that they have not received any viscera the report of which was called for from them and as such they are unable to forward the same to this court. They however, mentioned that it could be possible that the same might have been sent to the Police Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no evidence worth the same on record to suggest that the death of Smt. Kanchan was homicidal and unless there is primary evidence to that effect the accused cannot be kept in custody as no case is made out against him and under section 498A IPC presumption cannot be drawn against him. It is contended that viscera has deliberately not been sent to the Chemical Analyst and instead was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory Jaipur wherefrom the report has been sent to the investigating officer which is in negative but the investigating authority has deliberately with-held the same and has not placed before the court. The learned counsel for the petitioner showed to me a photo-state copy of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan , Nehru Nagar, Jaipur which is FSL/Toxi/Div/383/85 dated July 27, 19X5 based on a reference from Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhuriu vide letter No. 4867.68 dated June 18, 1985 in case No. 24/85, dated June, 6, 1985 of Police Station Mandava under section 498A Cr. PC. It is said to have been received through Mamraj Constable No. 107 on May 19, 1985 and the packets were two in number marked A and to B which were sealed at the mouth and were enclosed within white cloth. In packet marked A there was stomach and contents, while in packet marked B there was the piece of liver, piece of kidney, piece of splean and piece of lung. In packet marked A there was stomach and contents, while in packet marked B there was the piece of liver, piece of kidney, piece of splean and piece of lung. It has been shown in this photostat copy of the letter that remanent (s) of the Exhibit (s) is/are being returned separately in the same containers and covers alongwith the lables and the result of the examination was shown as under : "On chemical examination, portions of viscera (1-6) from packet marked A-B gave negative tests for the presence of metallic poisons they and methyl alcohols, chloral hydrate, cyanides, alkaloids, barbiturates and insecticides." This report is signed by Dr. A.C. Rajvanshi, Senior Scientific Officer (Toxicology) and Assistant Director D.C. Sethi and on the strength of the aforesaid photo state copy it has been said that no murder has been proved in the case and there are no remote chances of the accused being punished for the death of Mst. Kanchan. 5. On behalf of the complainant and the State it has been contended that this is a case of dowry death and in such cases when the girls are tortured bail should not be granted and further that there is evidence to suggest in this case that father-in-law had been demanding the dowry in the past and there are letters of the girl to indicate that she had been tortured and at one stage she even expressed her fear and expressed that she may pat an end to her life. It is further contended that there is evidence of beating a day prior to the incident and as such the bail should not be granted in this case. 6. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival arguments and have perused the entire case diary and also the photostat copy of the report of Forensic Science Laboratory. At the out-set I posed a question to the learned counsel for the complainant as well as State whether there is any evidence worth the name on record to suggest that the death of Mst. Kanchan is homicidal, but the question remained unanswered and till date since June 6, 1985 there is not a word in the case diary to suggest even remotely that it is a case of homicidal death. Kanchan is homicidal, but the question remained unanswered and till date since June 6, 1985 there is not a word in the case diary to suggest even remotely that it is a case of homicidal death. No internal injury was found in the postmortem conducted by the Board of Doctors and they suspected the cause of death to be administration of some poison or otherwise and as such sent the pieces of intestine, liver, spleen, lung so and so forth to the chemical analyst. It is most regrettable that that wishes of the Medical Board were not carried out in letter and spirit and instead of sending the packets to the chemical examiner they were sent to the Police Forensic -Science Laboratory, Jaipur and still more regrettable is that till date despite this court's direct one time and again the investigation authorities have failed to produce the result of the Forensic Science Laboratory Test till date It is surprising that though the report has been forwarded on July 27, 1985 appears from Photostat copy which is in possession of the accused's counsel, the same has not been made a part of the case diary. When I intended to seek an explanation from the investigating Officer present in the court who was summoned, he expressed that at the behest of the complainant the investigation has been transferred from police station Mandawar to C.I.D., Crime Branch, Jaipur and as such he is unable to throw any light on the progress of the investigation. 7. It is a sad tale that a photostat copy of the report has gone in the hands of the accused prior to it has been placed on record of the case. am not making any inquiry into aspect on the case, but suffice for me to say that it speaks about in-efficiency/dishonesty on the part of those who are in-charge of keeping such documents. It may be at the end of the Laboratory or at the investigating officer level, but this document certainly has been pilfered and has reached the hands of the accused which requires an independent inquiry by those who are in-charge of the same. It may be at the end of the Laboratory or at the investigating officer level, but this document certainly has been pilfered and has reached the hands of the accused which requires an independent inquiry by those who are in-charge of the same. But at the same time I am conscience while deciding this bail application, this aspect cannot till the balance about consideration of bail and liberty of a person unless there is some case non-bailable is prima facie there on the record of the case. I am 1 constraint to say that till date the prosecution has miserably failed to convince me that the death of Mst. Kanchan was homicidal and unless this 1 is shown the accused cannot be detained in judicial custody any further. My holding so does not mean that it gives a clean chit to the accused-petitioner or make a ground for bail to other co-accused who are in judicial custody. I have said so because presumption for offence under section 498A IPC could be drawn under law against the husband and if conspiracy proved even can be dragged the other persons. 8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the age of the offender, I direct that the accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties in the sum of rupees 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu for his appearance before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar or in any other court where the case is challenged or tried or as and when or where he is so required. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Director General of Police who shall institute an inquiry into the matter as to at what level and from which source the document has been pilfered and further as to why the Medical Board's instructions have not been carried out.Bail granted. *******