PITAMBAR SWAIN Vs. AINTHU ASHOK KUMAR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by the informant, brother of deceased Satyabhama for cancellation of bail of opposite party No.1 granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur, in the impugned order dated 30-4-1988.

(2.) Facts in brief are as follows Satyabhama was married to opposite party no. 1 in the year 1983. At the time of the marriage she was sent to the matrimonial home with sufficient dowry, but her parents-in-law, as well as her husband (opposite party no. 1), were not satisfied and out of greed demanded more and in order to put pressure tortured the deceased by merciless assault. Despite the fact that she gave birth to a son and a daughter, the assault persisted. On 4-4-1988 late at night opposite party no. 1 took the deceased by a rickshaw to Jenapur Subsidiary Health Centre, Where the Medical Officer on examination declared that she was already dead. The Medical Officer suspected foul play and insisted for post-mortem examination of the dead body, but opposite party no. 1 forcibly removed the dead body and cremated the same in the Ban on the back side of his house by pouring kerosene and diesel on the pyre. Neither any information was sent to the police, nor were the parents of the deceased informed of the death. On 5-4-1988 at about 2.00 p.m. the informant learnt of the death and came to the house of opposite party no. 1, but found him absent. The mother of opposite party no. 1 told him that Satyabhema died and was cremated in the Ban. She solid not say about whereabouts of opposite party no. 1. Th. informant suspected foul play and lodged first information report at Dharmasala Police Station. The police at once took up investigation and while the case was still under investigation a fortnight after bail was moved and granted.

(3.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed in the impugned order that except the first information report and the statement of the informant, there was nothing to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of dowry. The witnesses examined did not implicate him in the commission of any offence. He, therefore, held that for lack of incriminating materials bail could not be refused to opposite part no. 1.