Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 62 (PAT)

Ram Pravesh Singh v. State Of Bihar

2001-01-22

M.L.VISA

body2001
Judgment 1. This application by the petitioner has been filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to opposite party no. 2 by order dated 12.7.2000 passed by Sri R. K. Chaudhary Incharge Sessions Judge, Saran in a case under sections 304B, 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3, 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this application are that the petitioner filed a complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran, stating therein that his sister Smt. Rinku was married to opposite party no. 2 on 9.6.95 and after marriage she went to her Sasural. After some time the opposite party no. 2 and his other family members named in the complaint petition started making demand of motorcycle and television as dowry and because their demand was not fulfilled by the petitioner they ousted Smt. Rinku from their house. The petitioner and his family members went to the house of opposite party no. 2 where after great persuasion opposite party no. 2 and his family members agreed to allow Rinku to come to their house but again on 15.10.97 they ousted Rinku from their house. The petitioner this time again went to the house of opposite party no. 2 and promised to fulfil their demand and on this assurance opposite party no. 2 and his family members came to the house of petitioner on 15.1.98 and took Rinku with them but subsequently the petitioner came to know that on 13.3.98 opposite party no. 2 and his family members committed the murder of Rinku. 3. The complaint petition of petitioner was sent to police for instituting a case and accordingly Marhaura P.S. Case No. 50/98 under sections 498A, 304B of the Indian Penal Code and 3, 4 and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered (Annexure-1). After investigation police submitted chargesheet against opposite party no. 2 under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code on 28.7.2000 in the court below and thereafter opposite party no. 2 filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, Saran which was heard by the Incharge Sessions Judge, Saran, who granted anticipatory bail to opposite party no. 2. According to the petitioner, when police after investigation submitted chargesheet under section 304B IPC against opposite party no. 2 the order granting anticipatory bail to opposite party no. 2 filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, Saran which was heard by the Incharge Sessions Judge, Saran, who granted anticipatory bail to opposite party no. 2. According to the petitioner, when police after investigation submitted chargesheet under section 304B IPC against opposite party no. 2 the order granting anticipatory bail to opposite party no. 2 cannot be sustained in law. The petitioner has prayed (for cancellation of the anticipatory bail t granted to opposite party no. 2 by the Incharge Sessions Judge. 4. Opposite party no. 2 has appeared and filed reply to show cause notice issued to him stating therein that his wife Rinku used to live with him at Dispur in Assam and on 13.3.98 Rinku was alone in the house because he was not present in the house and Rinku died in an accidental fire due to burst of stove and he had given information in writing to local police on the basis of which Dispur Police Station U.D. Case No. 13/98 was registered and after thorough investigation Dispur Police submitted final form showing it a case of accidental fire (Annexure-A) and so far the complaint of petitioner which has subsequently been lodged against opposite party no.2 and on the basis of which Marhaura P.S. Case No. 50/98 has been instituted, is concerned, the Dy. S. P. who supervised the case did not find the case true (Annexure-C). The chargesheet has been submitted against opposite party no. 2 in this case only on the direction of the S. P. merely on the ground that on the fateful day the deceased was alone in her house suggesting that there was strained relationship between opposite party no. 2 and deceased. According to opposite party no. 2 admittedly the occurrence took place under the jurisdiction of Dispur Police Station at Gauhati where the law was set in motion by opposite party no. 2 himself and the petitioner has subsequently filed a complaint petition wrongly showing the place of occurrence in the State of Bihar. Opposite party no. 2 has prayed for rejecting the prayer of petitioner. 5. 2 himself and the petitioner has subsequently filed a complaint petition wrongly showing the place of occurrence in the State of Bihar. Opposite party no. 2 has prayed for rejecting the prayer of petitioner. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order I find that the learned Incharge Sessions Judge, Saran after taking into consideration that the case was first investigated by the Dispur Police which submitted final form and after it petitioner filed a complaint petition on the basis of which present case has been instituted but then in the present case also the Dy. S.P. who supervised the investigation also found the case not true and opined for submission of final report declaring the case as mistake of fact but under the direction of S.P. chargesheet has been submitted against opposite party no. 2 merely for the reason that opposite party no. 2 went to visit his sisters place leaving behind his wife alone on the fateful day which was the day of Holi festival; granted anticipatory bail to opposite party no. 2. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 relying upon a decision of the apex court in the case of Dolat Ram and others V/s. State of Haryana, (1995)2 BLJ 232 which was also a case of dowry death and in which petitioner was granted anticipatory bail has submitted that no ground for cancellation of bail as set out by the apex court has been shown for allowing the prayer of petitioner. The relevant portion of the aforesaid decision is quoted below: "Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of ball, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are : interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attemp to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. The satisfaction of the court on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer Conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial." 7. As stated above, the learned Incharge Sessions Judge after considering the fact that the case was earlier investigated by Dispur police which found the case to be of accidental death and thereafter the Dy. S. P. who supervised the case was also of the opinion for submission of final report for declaring the case as mistake of fact, granted bail to opposite party no. 2. I do not find any apparent error in the impugned order. 8. In the result, this application is dismissed.