VAKIL CHAND CHANDEL Vs. NIRMALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both these petitions for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code) arise out of the same case, therefore, are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the presentation of these petitions are that an F.I.R. No. 54 of 2001 dated 6.4.2001 under Section 498 -A and 306 I.P.C. has been registered against Nirmala Devi (respondent No. 1 in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 566 of 2000) and Ajay Kumar (respondent No. 1 in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 567 of 2001) (hereafter referred to as the respondents) in police Station, Nadaun, District Hamirpur. The prosecution case against them is that Sunita Devi, daughter of the petitioner, was married to Ajay Kumar, respondent, of village Jhalari, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur. Respondent - Nirmala Devi is the mother of respondent - Ajay Kumar. After the said marriage, Sunita Devi gave birth to a son and a daughter. Respondent Nirmala Devi started taunting Sunita Devi regarding inadequate dowry whereas at the time of the marriage the respondents had refused to accept any dowry. Sunita Devi complained about the aforesaid behaviour to her father and also complained that the behaviour of Nirmala Devi - respondent was cruel to her and that her husband respondent - Ajay Kumar also would take side of his mother -respondent Nirmala Devi. Against this background, Sunita Devi and respondent Ajay Kumar started living separately in a rented house. However, after about a year they again started living with respondent Nirmala Devi. For a few days every -thing went well but thereafter respondent Nirmala Devi started quarrelling with Sunita Devi and also instigated Ajay Kumar to quarrel with her. On April 5, 2001 the petitioner received a telephonic massage at Shimla regarding illness of Sunita Devi. He went to village Jhalari alongwith his wife and when he reached at the house of the respondents he found Sunita Devi lying dead in the kitchen. The petitioner then reported the matter to the police and thus the aforesaid F.I.R. came into being. In the meanwhile, the respondents filed applications under Section 438 Cr. P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who at the relevant time was exercising the powers of Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. Vide order dated 4.7.2001, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the production of the case records for consideration on 9.4.2001 and further directed that the respondents be not arrested till further orders. It appears that the applications were listed before the learned Sessions Judge on 9.4.2001 who ordered the matter to be posted on 11.4.2001 and directed the S.H.O. concerned to release the respondents on bail in the event of their arrest on their furnishing personal bonds each in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ - with one surety each in the like amount till the date so fixed. When the applications came up for hearing before the learned Sessions Judge on 11.4.2001, after noticing the facts in detail, the learned Sessions Judge found it a fit case for issue of interim directions regarding the release of the respondents on bail till 2.5.2001 with directions to the respondents to continue to associate themselves in the investigation. It appears that on 2.5.2001 the directions regarding interim bail granted to respondents were extended till 8.5.2001. When the applications came up for hearing before the learned Sessions Judge on 8.5.2001, he directed that the directions vide order dated 9.4.2001 shall remain in force till the final report is presented in the Court for the trial of the respondents if any, and the respondents were directed to join investigation as and when so required by the investigating agency. In the meanwhile, the petitioner made further representation to the investigating agency that the daughter had not committed suicide but was done to death.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the orders enlarging the respondents on anticipatory bail, the petitioner has preferred these two petitions praying therein for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents.