SUSHILA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Sushila petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 439(2) Cr. P.C. for the cancellation of anticipatory bail of respondents No. 2 to 4, granted by the Court of Sessions judge vide order dated 11.11.1995. These respondents were booked for offences under section 406 and 498 -A, IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak exercised the powers under Section 438 Cr. P.C. by stating as follows : "It came to light that all the dowry articles given in marriage have since been returned. Copy of report lodged by Sushila Devi with the police does not support her allegations of harassment and demand of dowry." Coming to above conclusion prima facie the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak granted the anticipatory bail to respondents No. 2 to 4 and aggrieved by the said order, the complainant Sushila Devi has filed the present application.

(2.) BEFORE start of the submissions it has been stated at the bar by the learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 that Sushila Devi petitioner has already expired and in these circumstances no useful purpose is likely to serve for the cancellation of bail. This fact is, however, being disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner for want of knowledge. Be that as it may, I have to see whether the discretion exercised under section 438 Cr. P.C. has been so invoked with such glaring illegality that it has become necessary for this court to interfere in the said order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge wrongly came to the conclusion that the dowry articles had been returned before passing of the impugned order dated 11.11.1995 and in support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Annexure P.1, a letter written to the SHO, Police Station, Bahadurgarh by Sushila Devi in which she has complaint that items mentioned at Sr. No. 1 to 17 had not been returned to her. This fact is being disputed by the opposite party.

(3.) IN the opinion of this Court, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner lose their significance when .the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 4 has brought to the notice of this court that after considering the rival claims of the parties the learned Magistrate had decided to drop the charge against respondents No. 2 to 4 under section 406 IPC. In this manner, it can be clearly inferred that no offence under section 406 IPC was ever made out and in this regard the observations of the learned Sessions Judge were read when he stated that since there was no specific entrustment even alleged by the petitioner, therefore, he wanted to release respondents No. 2 to 4 on anticipatory bail. Now respondents No. 2 to 4 are supposed to face charge under section 498 -A, IPC and keeping in view the assertions made by the counsel for the respondents that Smt. Sushila Devi has since expired, no useful purpose is likely to be served with the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted in favour of the respondents No.2 to 4.