R. L. Gupta ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed for cancellation ofbail under Section 439 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short)allowed to the first respondent by learned ASJ, Shabdara, Delhi. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to the prosecution of the first respondent 1 arethat Smt. Chhama Jain. tdaughter of the petitioner-complainant, was marriedto the first respondent (on 4-7-1991 at Shahdara. Just after. about fourmonths it is alleged, the first respondent and his parents started harassingher for bringing insufficient dowry She was tortured and humiliated also. / THERE wabs a specific demand/of Rs. 15,000. 00 by the first respondent. A sumof 5,000. 00 was paid to him and on their inability to pay the balance amountof Rs. 10,000. 00 she was alleged to have been brutally murdered along with asix months child in her womb by the first respondent, his sister and parentson 5-4-1992. A case wasegistered under Sections 498-A/304-B read withsection 34 Indian Penal Code vide FIR No. 94/1992 in PS Vivek Vihar on 6-4-1992 on thedirection of Sh. R. K. Mishra, SDM, Shahdara. The further allegation isthat without application of mind bail was granted to the respondent on13-7-1992 in an arbitrary manner without considering the facts andcircumstances of the case. ( 3 ) I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for thepartics. ( 4 ) THE case was registered on the statement of the petitioner who isthe father of the deceased on the allegations reproduced above. Hisstatement was supported by his wife Smt. Om Wati, their son-in-law Bhuparkash and Laxmi Devi, sister of the deceased, 0m Wati told the policethat there was no other bread winner in her family except her husband andon account of their poverty they had married their daughter to the firstrespondent whose first wife had also died by sustaining burns. After aboutfour months the first respondent came to their house and asked forrs. 5,000. 00 from her. She gave him Rs. 200. 00. After some days thedeceased came to visit their house along with the first respondent and told herthat her sister-in-law Savita. mother-in-law Sumitra harassed her by sayingthat she had neither brought clothes nor cash from her parents. She madeher understand politely and asked her to go back. On the occasion of Holiwhich was 19/03/1992) the petitioner had gone to bring the deceased. He told her on return that the father-in-law of the deceased had asked forrs. 15,000. mother-in-law Sumitra harassed her by sayingthat she had neither brought clothes nor cash from her parents. She madeher understand politely and asked her to go back. On the occasion of Holiwhich was 19/03/1992) the petitioner had gone to bring the deceased. He told her on return that the father-in-law of the deceased had asked forrs. 15,000. 00 and he told them that at that time he was not in a position togive that amount and he will see it later on. Then she came to know thatjust after few days i. e. on 3-4-1992, her daughter died of burns and shesuspected that she had been burnt to death by her in-laws. The deceasedalso visited the house of Bhu Parkash 2-3 times along with her husband andtold them that her in-laws harassed her and gave beating to her on accountof dowry. She also told them that about 2-1/2 months prior to the recordingof his statement they had brought Rs. 5,000. 00 from her father. She alsoinformed him about the visit of her father a few days before Holi and that hehad come hack dis-appointed because they did not send her with him. Similar corroboration is found in the statement of Laxmi Devi, sister of thedeceased. The police also examined Champat Rai through whom the matchof the deceased was settled with the respondent. He told the police furtherthat the wife of the respondent had died because of burns and he had got thismatch settled on entreaties of the father of the respondent. The deceasedused to visit his house and used to tell him weepingly that she had beenthrown in hell by him because her in-laws used to beat her day and night anddemanded dowry. He also corroborates the other witnesses regardingbringing of Rs. 5,000. 00from the petitioner, the refusal of the in-laws of thedeceased to send her with her father 3-4 days before Holi and so on. In thepost-mortem examination the doctor also found a 32 centimeter femalefoetus in the womb of the deceased. ( 5 ) AS against this the statement of Sh. Ashok Kumar Goel seems tohave been recorded at the time of inquest proceedings. He is a practisingadvocate in Shahdara Courts. He was informed by his relation Kusum Latathat Chhama Rani had suffered burns. He rang up police at telephone No. 100 and went to her house. ( 5 ) AS against this the statement of Sh. Ashok Kumar Goel seems tohave been recorded at the time of inquest proceedings. He is a practisingadvocate in Shahdara Courts. He was informed by his relation Kusum Latathat Chhama Rani had suffered burns. He rang up police at telephone No. 100 and went to her house. He saw many persons collected in the galioutside the house and found the deceased lying completely burnt in thebathroom. She was married 9-10 months before. He was not on visitingterms in that house because the marriage had been performed against theirwishes, the reason being that the first wife of the respondent had also diedbecause of burns about two years prior to that. The !ast sentence which headded to his statement is that the deceased who used to come to their househad never told him about any harassment caused to her about dowry. ( 6 ) LEARNED SDM sent a memo dated 6-4-1992 to the SHO, PS Vivekvihar to register a case against the respondent and his parents etc. afterrecording the statement of the petitioner. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent contended that the learned ASJwas right in saying that there were two different versions at this stage beforehim and on the basis of the case of Ravi Kumar v. State, 1991 Crl. L. J. 2579,he was right in allowing bail to the respondent. On the other hand learnedcounsel for the petitioner contended that the statement of Sh. Ashok Kumarcould not be deemed to be such a statement on the basis of which it could besaid that it was. not a case of demands or harassment for dowry. Moreover,he contended, that was a statement given by Sh. Ashok Kumar duringinquest proceedings. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondenturged that the statement of Sh. Ashok Kumar was also entitled to be givensame weight as those of other witnesses. He is also stated to be a closerelation and, therefore, prima facie learned ASJ was right in saying thatsome witnesses did not refer to any previous torture or foul play. I do notagree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent. Thereason is that according to his own statement, Sh. Ashok Kumar and hisfamily members were not happy with the marriage of the deceased to therespondent. They, in fact. I do notagree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent. Thereason is that according to his own statement, Sh. Ashok Kumar and hisfamily members were not happy with the marriage of the deceased to therespondent. They, in fact. wanted that such marriage should not beperformed because Anita, first wife of the respondent had also died of burnsin that very house about 2 years back only. This portion of the statementof Sh. Ashok Kumar prima facie provides an explanation why the deceaseddid not make any complaints about harassment being caused to her in thematrimonial home on account of dowry. She must be aware of the factthat since Sh. Ashok Kumar and his family members did not want hermarriage to be performed with the respondent, she was likely to get rebufffrom them if she had complained to them about any harassment on accountof the demand of dowry. Moreover, the statement of Sh. Ashok Kumarprima facie appears to be contradictory. On the one hand he says that thefirst wife of the respondent had died because of burns in his house only abouttwo years back. Therefore, it is not understood how at the time of inquesthe could be sure that he did not suspect any foul play in the death of hissister. Infact, prima facie there is sufficient evidence to indicate demandsof dowry and even receipt of about Rs. 5. 000. 00 by the first respondent fromthe father of the deceased against his demand of Rs. 15,000. 00 There is alsoevidence to indicate that on account of the non fulfillment of the demandsof the respondent and his parents, they did not send the deceased with herfather when he had come to take her only about 4-5 days before Holi and itwas just within 15-16 days of Holi that Chhama Jain was found dead withburns. Two photographs have also been placed on record showing theposture in which the deceased was found lying. The head of the deceased inthese photographs is seen resting on the bottom portion of the wooden stool. My feeling is that even these photooraphs prima facie cast strong suspicionabout the commission of an offence under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code by the firstrespondent. ( 8 ) I am, therefore, of the view that the learned ASJ has notcorrectly exercised discretion in the matter of grant of bail to the first respondent. My feeling is that even these photooraphs prima facie cast strong suspicionabout the commission of an offence under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code by the firstrespondent. ( 8 ) I am, therefore, of the view that the learned ASJ has notcorrectly exercised discretion in the matter of grant of bail to the first respondent. It need not be said that such crimes against women are on the riseand if the Courts deal with such offences leniently in the initial stage wheneither the investigation is not even complete or the material witnesses havenot been examined during trial such an attitude of Courts is likely to furtherencourage such crimes. The case of Ravi Kumar (supra) provided acompletely different picture. There the in-laws were shown to havepurchased property in favour of the deceased wife before her death. Somesubstantial cash amount was also shown deposited in the name of her newlyborn child. The complainant in that case was a step-mother who hadseparated alongwith her husband from the tender children including thedeceased and they were looked after by grand-parents. There were manyother similar circumstances and the present case does not provide anyparallel. ( 9 ) IN conclusion, I am of the view that there was sufficient primafacie evidence on the basis of which it could be said that the first respondentwas guilty of the commission of offence under Section 304-B, 498-A readwith Section 34 Indian Penal Code and order of grant of bail lacks complete propriety andas such amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 readwith Section 401 of the Code. ( 10 ) THE petition is, therefore, allowed. The bail granted to the firstrespondent is hereby cancelled. Concerned Court shall issue non-bailablewarrants against the first respondent and put him in judicial custody. This order will not take away the right of the petitioner at some subsequentstage.