OM PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. MUKESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is really most unfortunate that an officer of the level of Additional Sessions Judge should have passed such a non speaking order in such a serious matter wherein deceased Sunita whose marriage was solemnized with the respondent Mukesh only on 27.1.91 and who lost her life just after about 14 months only on 15.3.1992. The bail was granted to the respondent within less than a month's time by the following order:

(2.) It will be necessary to understand the circumstances in which the Gist respondent was sought to be implicated in the murder of his wife. Om Prakash Gupta, father of the deceased made the following statement to the police.

(3.) This complaint was made by him on 16.3.1992, and it is he who seeks cancellation of bail of the respondent. It appears that the case was registered by the police at the instance of the SDM Sh. R.K. Misra and it was only subsequently that the respondent and others were arrested. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that Sunita was brutally murdered by respondent and his other family members just within about 14 months of her marriage and according to Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act (Act for short), a presumption of dowry death prima facie arose in this case. In the alternative .it was argued that even if it was a case of suicide, by the deceased, a presumption of abetment of suicide by the respondent and his relatives did arise under Section 113-A of the Act. However, it is further contended that learned Add). Sessions Judge did not keep in view the nature and gravity of the offence attributed to the respondent. On the other hand on behalf of the respondent, it has been contended that cancellation of bail should not be by way of punishment even if there was a prima facie case againt the respondent. For cancellation of bail, it is argued, very cogent and over-whelming circumstances should be brought out and even then the approach of the court should not be primarily for keeping the accused in custody by way of punishment and that at this stage, the Court should be coneerned in finding out if bewould be readily available for trial or be was likely to abuse the discretion of the Court granted in his favour by tampering, with the prosecution evidence.