CHAIN SINGH DHAKAD Vs. HARGOVIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is complainant's application under section 439(2) Cr. P.C. for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the non-applicants by Shri K. A. Sisodiya, Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen on 7-8-89 and 8-8-1989 in bail application Nos.546/89 and 636/89 respectively.

(2.) It appears that Vinita, Daughter of the applicant was married to non-applicant Hargovind on 7-5-1987. She died on 7-7-1989 apparently because of poisoning. Facts in the case diary reveal that she had become pregnant and aborted a child at Jabalpur in June 1989. Facts in case diary also reveal that on 8-7-1989 at 1.45 A. M. intimation was received through Mahesh, ward boy of Government Hospital Udaypura, district Raisen that Vinita was brought to the hospital by non-applicant Hargovind and his father Kanhaivylal for treatment but on examination she was found already dead. The intimation was given by Dr. S. N. Singh on 7-7-1989 at 10.10 p.m. On receipt of this intimation 'Marg' was recorded and two constables sent to hospital for inquiry. The inquiry from the non-applicant Hargovind revealed that Vinita had started feeling head ache at about 4 p.m. On 7-7-1989 and had slept. There after between 5 and 5.30 p.m. she started vomiting and passing loose motions. The non-applicant informed the police authorities that he had taken Vinita to Deori on his tractor for treatment and that she had fainted on reaching Deori. He had then informed his father-in-law Chain Singh who immediately came with a jeep. By then Vinita's condition had deteriorated and therefore it was decided to take her to Bhopal. While proceeding to Bhopal, it was decided to get her treated at Udaipura hospital. That is why they sent to Udaipura hospital where Vinita was examined by the Doctor only to find that she was dead. The case diary reveals that on 8-7-89 at about 7 a.m. Panchanama of the dead body was prepared when it was suspected that Vinita had died of poisoning. It was therefore decided to get the post-mortem done, and the body was sent for the purpose immediately thereafter. Statements of Harisingh, Dhiraj Singh and Kanhaiyalal were also recorded. Chain Singh, the father of the deceased could not give his statement, as he was mentally disturbed. The inquiry, however, continued on 9-7-89. Applicant Chain Singh alleged that the non-applicants Hargovind Kanhaiya Lal and Smt. Kalabai had been treating Vinita with cruelty to obtain Rs. 50,000 /- as dowry and that was the cause of her death. It appears that the death had caused lot of problems in the area, as it was suspected that Vinita bai had been killed by administering poison. President and Members of Kirar Samaj sent an application to the S. D. O. (Police) Bareli for proper action. It appears that the entire kirar community was agitated creating serious law and order problem. The case diary reveals that the investigation continued and eventually offences under sections 304-B/306 IPC registered. At this stage the non-applicants made an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge which was granted on a finding that from the evidence appearing in the case diary the offence appears to be u/S. 306 IPC. In spite of it, nothing what-so-ever was stated about the offence u/S.304-B.I.P.C. The learned Judge was of the opinion, that no seizure was to be effected from the non-applicant and hence their presence was not required. He, therefore granted anticipatory bail.

(3.) The order dated 7-8-89 indicates that the non-applicants were represented by Shri Vijay Dhakad, Advocate and the State was represented by Shri J. P. Shukla, Advocate. On 8-8-1989, however, the State was represented by Shri P. R. Dhakad, father of Shri Vijay Dhakad, Advocate appearing for non-applicants on 7-8-1989. The order dated 3-8-1989 records that Shri P. R. Dhakad did not submit anything special to contradict the allegations made by non-applicant Kanhaiyalal. Both the orders do not take into consideration, the allegation relating to offence punishable u/S. 304-B.I.P.C. nor do they indicate that the respondent state had submitted that there was likelihood of investigation being influenced.