RAJ SINGH Vs. SUDHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of two connected petitions No. 10846-M of 1993 and CrI.M. 944-M of 1993. Raj Singh has moved this petition for cancellation of bail granted to Sudhir in Crl. M.No. 10846-M of 1993 and Radha Charan and Deepali in Crl. M.No. 944-M of 1993. All the three respondents were arrayed as accused in FIR No. 633 dated 8.9.1992 for offence under Section 304-B/34 IPC with respect to the death of Manju Bala alias Babli, the FIR was got registered by Raj Singh, petitioner on the allegations that the marriage of his daughter Manju Devi was soleminised with Sudhir Kumar on 6.2.1992 as per the Hindu customs and traditions. On demand having, been made by the respondents, a huge dowry was given. Manju Devi was M.A.M.Ed. and inspite of the fact that a large dowry had been given, she was being harassed by the respondent. The respondents had been making more demands for dowry and had been giving her beatings. It was being claimed that the price of an Engineer was Rs. 10.00 lacs and Manju's father had given nothing. Sudhir had been pressurising Manju for bringing Rs. 2.00 lacs from her father so as to enable him either to install a factory at Faridabad or to pay that amount as a bribe for getting a good job. Manju had been conveying this information on her visits to her parents. Maha Singh Mann, who was a friend of Raj Singh and was relative of Radha Charan and had played the role go between Ajmer Singh, a Custom Inspector, a close relation of Radha Charan and Chhotu Ram Rana a neighbourer of Radha Charan had been joined by the petitioner and taken to the house of Radha Charan at Faridabad in the last week of April 1992 and again in August 1992. In their presence also the respondents had made a demand for more dowry. When Raj Singh petitioner showed his inability to meet the demand, the same did not satisfy the respondents but had even pointed out that in that case they (Raj) shall have to bear the consequence. On 6th September, 1992 at about 9-10 p.m. Raj Singh received an information that his daughter was seriously ill and admitted to Escort Hospital. But before he reached Manju had died. Inquest proceeding had been carried out and postmortem was performed and the dead body was cremated. He had, however, not a confirm belief that his daughter had been poisoned by the respondents. The Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide his order dated Ist October, 1992 granted bail to Deepali respondent mainly on the ground that the accusation by Raj Singh in the F.I.R. was mainly based on his belief which was not sufficient to implicate Deepali. It was also found that she was a student and is only 19 years of age. Radha Charan was allowed bail by the sessions Judge vide his order dated 19th October, 1992 considering the fact that the FIR had been lodged with delay and though Raj Singh present at the time of inquest report and postmortem no-allegations had been made against Radha Charan. Sessions Judge vide his order dated 28th October, 1992 rejected the bail application of Sudhir respondent. He then moved this court and his application for bail was rejected on 12th November, 1992. Sudhir again applied to the sessions Judge, Faridabad and the bail was allowed on 21st December 1992 vide annexure P-2.

(2.) THE sessions Judge had taken note of the fact that the previous application moved by Sudhir had been dismissed on 28th October, 1992, and his application before this Court had been rejected on the ground of, it being not the proper stage. He had, however, granted bail on the ground that petitioner Sudhir had been in jail for more than three months. The petitioner seeks cancellation of the bail of Radha Charan and Deepali on the basis that the sessions Judge had not given adequate grounds for allowing bail to them. That after the release on bail, Radha Charan had tried to tamper with the prosecution evidence. The witnesses have been threatened. Reliance is placed on Affidavits of Chhotu Ram annexure P-4 and petitioner himself annexure P-5. The cancellation of the bail of Sudhir had been sought on the ground that the same was allowed by the Sessions Court without sufficient grounds. That he had caused the death of his wife within 8 months of the marriage and this death was due to the cruelty meted out to her. That Sudhir had been making definite demands and Manju had written letter to her brother in Moscow giving details of the mal-treatment meted out to her. That Sudhir alongwith his co-accused had tried to temper with the evidence and in the month of June, 1993, Sudhir alongwith his father Radha Charan and some unknown person had come to the residence of the petitioner in his absence to put undue pressure on him on some compromise.

(3.) SO far as Sudhir respondent is concerned, it has to he noticed that his application for bail was rejected by this Court only on 12.11.1992 and it had been remarked that it was not the proper stage for bail yet a little more than I month thereafter on 21.12.1992, Sessions Judge granted him bail on the sole ground that he had been behind the bars for three months. Smt. Manju had died an unnatural death within 8 months marriage and since she had made complaints of mal-treatment and demand of dowry at the hands of her husband, the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act has to be raised against him and he has to show that the death was for reasons for which he was not to be blamed. It was not proper for the sessions Judge to have allowed him bail on the mere fact that more than three months had elapsed since he was arrested. I hereby allow the petition No. 10846-M of 1993 and cancel the bail granted to Sudhir respondent by the Sessions Judge vide his order dated 31.12.1992. The petition No. 944-M of 1993 is hereby dismissed.