SMT. ANITA AHLUWALIA W/O B.V.K. AHLUWALIA, A-109, PANDAV NAGAR, DELHI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY HOMES, STATE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 30.9.2009 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Solan in Bail Application No. 108 -S/22 of 2009 releasing the respondent No. 3 on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 104/2009 dated 21.6.2009, Police Station, Baddi, District Solan. It has been stated that Tanu daughter of petitioner was married to respondent No. 3 on 5.9.2007. On 20.6.2009 the respondent No. 3 alongwith his associates committed the murder of the daughter of petitioner. The police of Police Station, Baddi in connivance with accused had registered an FIR No. 104/2009 on 21.6.2009 under Section 306 IPC. The accused managed the doctor who conducted the postmortem and gave the cause of death "Asphyxia due to ante -mortem hanging" The accused was arrested on 21.6.2009. The investigation was transferred to CIA vide order dated 30.7.2009 of this Court in CWP No. 2408/09. However the investigation was not conducted properly.

(2.) THE police filed report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nalagarh on 19.9.2009. The respondent No. 3 filed Bail Application No,.68 -S/22 of 2009 which was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Solan camp at Nalagarh on 8.9.2009. The respondent No. 3 filed another bail application No. 108 -S/22 of 2009 which was allowed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Solan on 30.9.2009. At the time of hearing/arguments in Bail Application No. 108 -S -22 of 2009 on 29.9.2009 there was no material before learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was neither called by learned Addl. Sessions Judge nor it was sent to learned Addl. Sessions Judge at the time of hearing/arguments and considering bail application on 29.9.2009.

(3.) HEARD and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that except bail application of respondent No. 3 there was no material before learned Addl. Sessions Judge when the Bail Application No. 108 -S/22 of 2009 was heard on 29.9.2009. It has been submitted that report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. submitted by the police before learned Judicial Magistrate on 19.9.2009 was not called by learned Addl. Sessions Judge while considering the bail application on 29.9.2009 nor the said report was otherwise produced before that Court at the time of hearing of the bail application. It has been submitted that facts were reproduced by learned Addl. Sessions Judge in the order dated 30.9.2009 from the copy of previous Bail Application No. 68 -S/22 of 2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred information dated 23.11.2010 supplied to the petitioner by Civil Judge (Sr. Division) -cum -JMIC, Nalagarh that there was no movement of case file between 20.9.2009 to 30.9.2009 from the room of Ahlmad to any court at Nalagarh or Solan.