RAMABALLAV KHADANGA Vs. TRINATH UDGATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking cancellation of. bail granted to opposite parties 1 to 3 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Bail Application No. 594 of 2002/159 of 2002 arising out of Berhampur Mahila P.S. Case No. 62 of 2002.

(2.) ON the basis of an FIR filed by the petitioner alleging dowry death of his daughter a criminal case under Sections 498 -A/304 -B/302 IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was initiated, initially against one Pradip Kumar Udgata, admittedly the son -in -law of the petitioner. Subsequently the present opposite parties 1 to 3. the father -in -law, mother -in - law and brother of the husband of the deceased respectively were arrayed as accused. The petitioner is a very high ranking responsible Government servant working in the Central Excise Department. In the FIR he specifically alleged that to satisfy the dowry demand of his son -in -law and the opposite parties I to 3 though he had paid a sum of Rs. 4.00,000.00 (four lakhs) in cash and Rs. 1,00.000.00 (one lakh) in kind towards dowry, soon after the marriage, his son -in -law Pradip Kumar Udgata coerced his daughter to bring further sum of Rs. 2.00.000.00 from the petitioner. It was also alleged that the son -in -law of the petitioner threatened his daughter giving her ultimatum that if the aforesaid sum of Rs. 2.00,000.00 was not paid to him. he would kill her. It was further alleged in the FIR by the petitioner that his daughter and son -in -law were residing separately in rented house.

(3.) DURING continuance of investigation of the case by police the present opposite parties 1 to 3 were arrayed as accused though the FIR is very much silent with regard to their involvement. They were arrested and taken to custody. They filed bail application before the S.D.J.M. Berhampur which was rejected as the offences alleged to have been committed by them were triable by a Court of Session. Thereafter it appears they moved the learned Sessions Judge, Berhampur and ultimately the bail application was heard by the learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur. The Court below considering the fact that no specific overt act was attributed to opposite parties 1 to 3 in the FIR and the fact that the daughter and son -in -law of the informant -petitioner were staying in a rented house, separate from the in -laws of the daughter, came to a prima facie conclusion that the allegations levelled at a subsequent stage were after -thought and thus released opposite parties 1 to 3 on bail.