STATE OF MP Vs. AMBARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Dy. Advocate General Shri Desai on behalf of the applicant/State submits that this Court had suo mutu issued notices to respondent/applicant Ambaram for cancellation of bail granted to him by the Trial Court. This Court had on 11-3-2010 also directed the registration of a separate M.Cr.C. for cancellation for bail and in consequence the Counsel states that the order passed by the learned Judge of the Lower Court on 25-1-2010 is bad in law since it has been passed without giving any reasons. Counsel stated that the learned Judge of the Lower Court seems to be carried away by the fact that the marriage of the deceased sisters and the sons of Ambaram had taken place for almost 8 years grior to their death on 27-7-09 and hence the offence under Section 304-B of the IPC could not be made out against any of the accused. Counsel also stated that in the order dated 25-1-2010 when the learned Judge had made a categoric observation that the father-in-law and present respondent/applicant Ambaram had tried to molest both the girls time and again and both the sisters Preeti and Sheetal were frustrated and depressed because of their sexual exploitation and they had swallowed the pesticide to end their ordeal. Then at the time of granting bail in the same order the learned Judge has in a single line only observed that all the accused were exonerated under Section 304-B of the IPC, but the offence under Section 306 of the IPC could be made out and since the husband of Sheetal, the co-accused and son Santosh was a blind person, he deserved to be enlarged on bail along with the accused Ambaram. Then such contradictory stand by the learned Judge of the Lower Court was not at all justified or called for under the circumstances and Counsel for the State prayed for cancellation of bail granted to accused Ambaram.

(2.) Counsel for the respondent/applicant Ambaram on the other hand has stated that the XII Additional Sessions Judge, Indore had granted bail to the applicant Ambaram on 25-1-2010 in Sessions Case No. 1146/09, after considering all the circumstances along with co-accused Santosh the son of the applicant and husband of the deceased. Counsel averred that marriage of the sons of the present respondent/applicant with the two sisters deceased Preeti and Sheetal had taken place almost 8 years prior to the death and hence offence under Section 304-B of the IPC would not be made out against all the accused and hence the learned Judge of the Lower Court had exonerated all of them and granted bail to the accused son Santosh since he was also blind and had also granted bail to the present applicant Ambaram after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) Counsel further submitted that suicide notes allegedly written by two sisters Preeti and Sheetal were not reliable and highly susceptible. There was lot of overwriting on the suicide notes and they were almost identical in their content. Moreover their marriage was solemnized on 8-5-2002 where as the incident had occurred on 27-7-09. Moreover, the suicide notes were also very vague and there were no specific allegations regarding the cruelty meted out to the deceased sisters by the present applicants. Counsel also prayed that cancellation was not called for in the instant case because grant of bail was purely discretionary and the learned Judge of Lower Court has exercised his discretion which is subjective in nature.