(1.) THIS petition under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer that the bail granted to Respondent No 1. Vinod Kumar, husband of the deceased Seema, who stands arraigned for an offence punishable under Sections 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code be cancelled.
(2.) THE short facts are that Respondent No. 1 was married with Seema on llth October, 1995. As per the allegations made in the FIR (recorded at the instance of the petitioner), soon after the marriage, Vinod Kumar and his family that is his brother Lekh Raj, his wife Kuldip Kaur and their mother Lila Wanti started harassing her as they were dissatisfied with the dowry that she had brought. Seema often complained to her parents about the treatment that was meted out to her but continued to suffer the harassment for some time, but ultimately apparently overwhelmed by the cruelty meted out to her, she committed suicide on May 1,1996 by setting herself afire. The accused above named were, accordingly, arrested and were bailed out by the Sessions Judge, Paridkot on various dates. The present application has been filed only with respect to the cancellation of bail granted to Vinod Kumar, the husband vide order dated 23rd July, 1996.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the parties have been heard and a reply filed by Respondent No. 1 has also been taken on record. It has been contended by Mr. Duggal that the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot Mr. J. C. Aggarwal, had, on 14th June, 1996 dismissed as not pressed the first application for bail filed by the Respondent but the second one filed by him on 17th July, 1996 was allowed on 23rd July, 1996 by the impugned order and as there had been no change of circumstances between the dismissal of the first bail application and the success of the second one, this by itself was a circumstance to be taken note of by this Court. He has also urged that the discussion in the order impugned virtually indicated that no cruelty had, in fact, been meted out to the deceased and these findings had virtually dislodged the prosecution case even before the trial had started. As against this, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 Vinod Kumar has urged that the order for bail already having been granted to the said respondent and the concession having not been misused by him, should not be disturbed. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance. Admittedly, an application for bail filed by Respondent No. 1 Vinod Kumar had been dismissed as not pressed on 14th June, 1996. To my mind/ therefore, the first bail application having been declined by Mr. J. C. Aggarwal, there was no reason at all for him to have granted bail in the second one on 23rd July, 1996 as there had been no change in the circumstances in between these two dates. It is also to be borne in mind that the learned Sessions Judge went beyond the scope of merely deciding the bail application as the discussion in his order seems to be that in fact the charge against the accused was not proved. After making numerous observations in favour of the accused, the Court's observations in para 7 of the order that the same should not be taken to be an expression on the merits of this case, was, therefore, a redundant exercise. It is also to be borne in mind that in the case of a dowry death, primary responsibility lies on the husband and as the death had been caused within seven months of the marriage when even the euphoria of a recent marriage has not worn off, it is quite apparent that something extraordinary had happened which led Seema to commit suicide. It is equally true that by virtue of the incorporation of Section 113-B in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, certain presumptions against the accused in such like matters have been raised and some of the onus that lies on the prosecution to prove its case, has been shifted to the other side. This Court in Jagan Nath v. State of Haryana, 1995 (2) RCR 114, dealing with a similar situation, cancelled the bail granted by the Sessions Judge for an offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC in the light of the presumptions raised against the accused. This petition is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that the bail granted to Respondent No. 1 Vinod Kumar vide order dated 23rd July, 1996 by the learned Sessions Judge, be cancelled. .