Judgment 1. This application by petitioner has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 on 29.9.2003 and 28.10.2003 respectively by Illrd Additional Sessions Judge, Banka in Sessions Trial No. 814 of 2003 arising out of Banka Police Station Case No. 66 of 2003. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner lodged a case under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code against opposite party No. 2, husband of petitioners sister Bijli Devi and. opposite party No. 3, mother-in- law of Bijli Devi alleging that owing to torture on Bijli Devi by petitioners, Bijli Devi on 31.3.2003 at about 7 p.m., by running from the house of petitioners, jumped in a well situate near Panchayat Bhavan and committed suicide. On 29.9.2003, petitioner No. 3 was granted bail considering the submission on her behalf that in first information report, there is no allegation of murder, deceased committed suicide by jumping into the well, a fact which came during investigation and opposite party No. 3 was, admittedly, a woman entitled to benefits provided under Section 437(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. On 28.10.2003, opposite party No. 2 was granted ball considering the submission on his behalf that deceased committed suicide, he was a minor boy and his case stood on similar footing as that of opposite party No. 3. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has submitted that the post-mortem examination report of deceased (Annexure-3) discloses that the death of deceased was not a case of suicide by jumping into the well and cause of death, as found by the doctor who held postmortem examination on the dead body, was asphyxia due to strangulation and it was the case of post-mortem drowning. It is further argued that the Court below, while granting bail to opposite parties No. 2 and 3. did not apply judicial mind and acted in mechanical manner and ignored the materials collected during investigation and also ignored the fact that after investigation charge-sheet under Sections 302, 201 /34 of Indian Penal Code has been submitted against opposite parties No. 2 and 3. Petitioner has prayed for cancellation of bail granted to opposite parties No. 2 and 3. 4. Petitioner has prayed for cancellation of bail granted to opposite parties No. 2 and 3. 4. In the first information report lodged by petitioner who is, admittedly, the brother of deceased, the allegation against opposite parties No. 2 and 3 is that they, alongwith their other family members used to torture the deceased but the reason of this torture has not been explained in first information report. Case diary was called for in this case which has been received and from perusal of case diary also, it is clear that informant, in his further statement, recorded during investigation, did not give any reason why the petitioners used to torture the deceased. The informant, in his further statement, has admitted that before marriage his deceased sister was in love with opposite party No. 2 and when this petitioner and his other family members came to know about it, they made a proposal to the father of opposite party No. 2 for marriage who refused and a panchayati was held in which also father of opposite party No. 2 refused for the marriage of deceased sister of informant with opposite party No. 2 and then deceased filed a case in Court and finally in the month of June, 2002, marriage of deceased and opposite party No. 2 was performed in a temple at Deogarh and after marriage, deceased was living in the house of opposite parties No. 2 and 3 where she was subjected to torture. The perusal of case diary further shows that witnesses, whose statements have been recorded in paras 13 to 22 and 30 to 32 of case diary, have stated that deceased and opposite party No. 2 were in love before marriage and their marriage had taken place in a temple and they have further said that deceased frequently used to visit the house of her parents which is situate in front of house of her sasural but petitioner and parents of deceased used to scold her that why after marriage, she was frequently coming to their house and on the day of occurrence, she was in the house of her parents where she had gone 3 to 4 days before and from there, she went and jumped in a well. Some of them have said that they found petitioner alongwith his father and brother moving in search and when they were enquired by witnesses what they were searching for, they replied that they were searching their missed cattle and, thereafter, dead body of deceased was found from a well near Panchayat Bhavan. Para-42 of case diary, which is the statement of witness named Satish Sharma, shows that on the day of occurrence at about 7 p.m. when he was returning from the farm of Naval Babu, he saw a lady weeping and going hurriedly towards a well and because it was dark and lonely place, he thought her to be a ghost and he hurriedly proceeded towards Panchayat Bhavan but immediately heard the sound of something falling in the well and after sometime, he heard bulla in the village that Bijli Devi had died by drowning in the well near Panchayat Bhavan. The main argument of petitioner is that from post-mortem examination, the doctor who held autopsy has opined cause of death as asphyxia due to strangulation. Admittedly, he did not find any sign of strangulation on the dead body and it is not clear that how he had given this opinion but notwithstanding this fact, as stated above, there is statement of a number of witnesses that on the day of occurrence, deceased was in her parents house where she had gone from her sasural about 3 to 4 days ago. Not a single witness during investigation, has stated that deceased was being tortured by her in-laws and on the contrary, the statements of witnesses show that when deceased used to go to her parents house, her parents and petitioner used to scold her why even after marriage, she was in the habit of frequently visiting their house. The statement of witness Satish Sharma who had seen a lady weeping and going towards well and immediately thereafter hearing the sound of something falling in the well and, thereafter, hearing hulla that deceased died by drowning in the well suggests that he had seen the deceased going towards well and this statement is against the opinion of the doctor as to the cause of death of deceased. Besides this, case diary shows that opposite party No. 2 surrendered in the Court on 2.5.2003 and was remanded to custody and, admittedly, he was granted bail on 29.9.2003 meaning thereby after remaining in custody for about five months. One of the considerations of grant of bail to opposite parties No.2 and 3 was that opposite party No. 2 was minor and opposite party No. 3 is a lady. About the misuse of bail granted to opposite parties No. 2 and 3 the petitioner, in a very casual manner in the application, has stated that they have started threatening and abusing the petitioner and his family members to compromise the case or face dire consequences. No date or time of any act in this regard by opposite parties No. 2 and 3 has been stated by the petitioner. After going through the application, it is clear that main grievance of petitioner is that post-mortem examination report and the fact that charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 302, 201/34 of Indian Penal Code were not considered by Court below and bail has been granted to opposite parties No. 2 and 3 on the basis of allegations made in the first information report in which there was no allegation of murder but then it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that, admittedly, petitioner was not an eyewitness. From this argument, it appears that the petitioner himself at the time of lodging first information report has not even raised suspicion against opposite parties No. 2 and 3 that they committed murder of deceased and it is only after opinion of doctor who held autopsy on the dead body and submission of charge-sheet under Sections 302, 201/34 of Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has come-up for the cancellation of bail of opposite parties No. 2 and 3 but then in view of the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, I do not find any merit in the prayer of petitioner. 5. In the result, this application stands dismissed.