P.K. ROY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has moved this petition under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. for cancellation of order granting regular bail to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, vide order dated 28-7-2003. Facts leading to filing of this petition are that the applicant's daughter namely, Sangeeta's marriage was solemnized with respondent No. 2 Animesh Bhattacharya on 12-12-2000. Respondent No. 3 is mother of respondent No. 2. On 08-1-2003 Sangeeta died of asphyxia on account of hanging by neck while she was residing with respondent No, 2 at his residence and it is said that three anti-mortem injuries were found on the body of deceased Sangeeta. When the applicant, who is father of Sangeeta, came to know about this fact, he immediately rushed to Bajaj Nursing Home, Bilaspur, where respondent No. 2 had taken Sangeeta for treatment. On reaching the nursing home he found that Sangeeta's body was lying in the auto rickshaw and Bajaj Nursing Home refused to admit Sangeeta, thereafter, the body was taken to the Government Hospital where, the doctor declared her brought dead. The applicant at about 10.30 P.M. on the same day lodged a report in the Police Station, Torbahar Bilaspur, with the allegations that Sangeeta has committed suicide on account of harassment and physical torture by accused persons for bringing dowry and to meet the demand of Rs. 1,00,000.00 of accused persons for the purpose of starting business of brother-in-law of respondent No. 2.

(2.) ACCORDINGLY, a case Crime No. 13/2003 under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. was registered. During the investigation, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 moved an application for anticipatory bail before the Court of Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. As the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur was on leave that application was taken up and heard by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur and after hearing the parties, he disposed of that bail application vide order dated 7-6-2003 and allowed the bail application of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and they were directed to be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs. 8,000.00 each and a surety in the likewise amount to the satisfaction of the Police Officer against which the applicant moved an application for cancellation of bair granted to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, but the same was dismissed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 23-7-2003. When after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed by the Police against the accused persons in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, the learned C.J.M. vide order dated 28-7-2003 granted regular bail to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 mentioning therein that the bail has already been ordered by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge on 7-6-2003. The applicant again moved the learned C.J.M, under Section 437(5) of the Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail, but vide order dated 2-8-2003, the learned C.J.M. rejected that application also. Notices of this application were issued to the State and respondents 2 and 3 and they are represented by their respective counsel. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant argued that as per the facts of the case, as applicant's daughter Sangeeta died within two years from the date of marriage in unnatural circumstances by committing suicide on account of harassment and physical torture and cruelty, therefore, prima facie offence under Section 304B of the I.P.C. was made out instead of offences under Section 498A and 306 of the I.P.C. Therefore, order of the learned C.J.M. is perverse, as such the bail should be cancelled. He further argued that the ground taken by the C.J.M. that bail has already been granted by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge is not legal and on the contrary, the learned C.J.M. after filing the charge sheet ought to have considered the material on record and he should have decided the bail application on the merits of the case based on the material available on record as anticipatory bail could have been granted only till the filing of the charge sheet.