BINDU SHARMA Vs. DEVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS necessary for the disposal of the present application under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent Nos. 1 to 8 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, are that the petitioner was married to respondent No. 1 on 19-4-1988. Differences and disputes having arisen, the petitioner was allegedly turned out of the house on 7-5-1989. An FIR under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was lodged on 8-7-1989. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, granted anticipatory bail to respondent Nos. 1 to 8 who are the husband, parents of the husband, sister, sister's husband and other relations of the husband of the petitioner. The order granting anticipatory bail noted that a major portion of the alleged dowry had already been recovered and was in possession of the Investigating Officer. The present application for cancellation of bail was moved on September 26, 1989. The cancellation is sought on the ground that the respondents had started intimidating the petitioner and her parents to deter them from appearing in the Court as witnesses in support of the said criminal case.

(2.) AFFIDAVIT of Radhey Mohan, respondent No. 6, has been filed by way of return in which it is stated that earlier there was a compromise between the parties on 19-6-1989 and in pursuance of that compromise articles of dowry has been returned to the petitioner through the police. It was denied that the respondents had ever dealt any threat to the petitioner or her parents etc.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that one of the considerations which weighed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge while granting anticipatory bail was that there was a possibility of compromise between the parties. No such compromise had, however, taken place and, therefore, said consideration did not hold good. He also argued that all the respondents including the husband, parents of the husband besides other relations had been granted anticipatory bail without keeping in view the direct involvement of husband and his parents in so far as allegations under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code were concerned.