GOVINDA CHANDRA SENAPATI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application made under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for bail in anticipation of his arrest in connection with Cantonment P. S. Case No. 86 of 1995 under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.I have heard Shri B. H. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General for the State and Shri B. H. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the informant.

(2.) The petitioner's son Vikram has married Lusna, the daughter of Bijayalaxmi Mohapatra on 28-5-1994. On the basis of F. I. R. lodged by Bijayalaxmi the aforesaid Cantonment P. S. Case No. 86 of 1995 has come to be registered. As the petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with the aforesaid case, it is relevant to note the contents of the related F. I. R. lodged on 19-6-1995. The informant in the F. I. R. has stated that her daughter Lusna was given in marriage to Vikram and after the marriage, there was demand of dowry in the shape of a Maruti Car and Air-Conditioner. The F. I. R. goes on to say that on her inability to meet the aforesaid demand of dowry, her daughter was being tortured and even attempt was made to do away with her life on account of which she has now been staying with the informant. In the F. I. R. it has been alleged that Vikram, son of the petitioner and his friends have been abusing the informant and his daughter (wife of Vikram) over telephone. In the premises stated above, the informant has prayed the police to take appropriate action.

(3.) Learned Advocate General by drawing my attention to paragraph-4 of the petitioner contended that the "tragedy" as mentioned in the said paragraph which has befallen on Lusna is something else. In this connection he inferred to Lusna's medical report dated 15-3-1995 as well as the statement dated 18-7-1996 (sic) recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. of the concerned doctor from which it would appear that Lusna was subjected to carnal inter-course. According to the learned Advocate General, the carnal inter-course was being committed on her by her husband which was inhuman and barbarous and constitutes cruelty and torture and this inhuman behaviour of Vikram towards his wife was brought to the notice of the petitioner who instead of taking any steps for (sic) selection the threatened his daughter-in-law. It was, if at all true, an affair between the couple for which the husband might be at fault. I have not been able to appreciate as to how the said affair is relevant for the case under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petitioner in any case by no stretch of fertile imagination comes to the picture so far as the alleged carnal intercourse is concerned.