JUDGMENT S. B. Sanyal, J. - Learned counsel for the State Sri Atul Chandra as well as learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Ghan Shyam Bihari, who has been noticed by this Court to show cause as to why his bail granted by the Court below be not cancelled, were heard. 2. By order dated 19-12-1989 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 11196 of 1989 dismissing the application for grant of anticipatory bail to Radhey Shyam alias Radha Raman Prasad, notice was directed to be issued to the husband of the deceased, namely, the present opposite party Ghan Shyam Bihari to show cause as to why the bail granted to him by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda, on 4-12-1989 be not cancelled. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party submitted that the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda, has recorded the order granting bail to the opposite party by referring to the several paragraphs of the case diary and that the opposite party has not misused the privilege of bail extended to him after his release on bail. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the case diary are the statements of the uncle and the cousin of the deceased, which have been greatly underplayed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge in his zeal to release the opposite party on bail. The statements of the uncle and the cousin of the deceased go to show that after the deceased girl was for the first time taken to her in-laws' house on 16-2-1989, several attempts were made by the parents to bring the deceased girl back from her in-laws' house, but that was being denied and great pressure was being laid for giving of colour T.V. and cash of Rs. 8,000/-. It has also been stated that for five days, the family of the informant received no information about the death of their daughter on 25-7-1989. It was hardly five months earlier that the deceased girl for the first time had gone to her in-laws' house. 4. 8,000/-. It has also been stated that for five days, the family of the informant received no information about the death of their daughter on 25-7-1989. It was hardly five months earlier that the deceased girl for the first time had gone to her in-laws' house. 4. Much stress has been laid by the Court below while granting bail to the opposite party as well as by the learned lawyer appearing before me on behalf of the opposite party that in paragraph 33 of the case diary, the mother of the deceased stated that her daughter kept on asking for colour T. V. from her, and from that the Court below concluded that there was no demand by the members of the in-laws family for giving of colour T. V. The supervision note seems to have been absolutely ignored by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, which clearly supports the first information report that the girl was murdered by throttling by the members of the family in the night of 25.7.1989 and was cremated in the village itself. Stress has also been laid that one villager stated that information about the death of the deceased was sent to the father of the deceased girl but these are all matters for consideration in the trial itself. 5. It is not known whether the opposite party has misused the privilege of bail after his release on 4.12.1989. Within fifteen days of his release on bail, on 19.12.1989, this Court issued notice to show cause to the opposite party as to why his bail be not cancelled. Therefore, it is too early to watch his conduct. Be that as it may, the Court while considering bail is required to exercise its discretion so that the confidence of the people in judicial system is not shaken. This is a case where as per the supervision note, the deceased was throttled to death by the members of the in-laws family. Evidence has been sought to be created in the case diary that the husband (the opposite party), the mother-in-law and the father-in-law were not in the house when the occurrence occurred, which appears to be Police concoction. In public interest and also in the interest of justice, the case of bride murder connected with non-fulfilment of dowry, requires judicious handling of the case, and not in a cavalier manner, as the Court below has resorted to. In public interest and also in the interest of justice, the case of bride murder connected with non-fulfilment of dowry, requires judicious handling of the case, and not in a cavalier manner, as the Court below has resorted to. 6. I, therefore, cancel the bail granted to the opposite party Ghan Shyam Bihari by the Court below on 4.12.1989, which appears to be not in public interest. The petitioner should be forthwith arrested and taken into custody. 7. It will be open to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and/or the Superintendent of Police to re-investigate the case, if they deem fit. 8. A copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the State.