RESHMA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application by petitioner has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to Vivek Singh, OP No. 2 on 4.9.1997 in ABP No. 443 of 1997 (Annexure -1). 15. 2 The brief facts giving rise to this application are that petitioner lodged a case at Gandhi Maidan Police Station under Sections 498 -A/34, IPC and Sections 3 and 5, Dowry Prohibition Act against OP No. 2 and others alleging therein that she was married to OP No. 2 on 29.1.1993 and after the marriage, the members of the family of OP No. 2 started torturing her on the demand of two acres of land, a Maruti Car and keeping the brother of OP No. 2 as partner in the business of father of 20. petitioner and the petitioner finally had no option but to leave the house of her husband leaving behind her son who was born in the year, 1994 there and to come to her parents. 3. The aforesaid case of the petitioner was registered as Gandhi Maidan PS Case No. 40 of 1997 and investigation was started. OP No. 2 made a prayer for anticipatory bail which was allowed by XIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Patna on 4.9.1997. The further case of petitioner is that after 25. grant of anticipatory bail to OP No. 2, he started inducing the prosecution which became hostile towards informant and Senior SP, Patna issued a letter directing City Superintendent of Police to take action in the matter only after consultation with him (Annexure -2). The petitioner was compelled to file CWJC No. 381 of 1997 for a direction to Senior SP, City SP and officer -in - charge, Gandhi Maidan PS, Patna to discharge their duties according to law and, accordingly, a 30. direction was issued to them by this Court on 28.11.1997 to act strictly in accordance with law (Annexure -3). 4. On 1.2.1999, charge -sheet in the case was submitted and cognizance was taken on 1.2.1999 accused persons, in pursuance of summons, appeared and took the plea that further investigation of case was being made by higher officials, therefore, further proceeding should be stayed but their 35. prayer was rejected. The IO submitted further investigation report describing the case to be of civil nature (Annexure -5/1) but learned CJM, Patna did not accept this report by observing that there was no occasion for further investigation and for submission of subsequent report and fixed the case for hearing on charge matter (Annexure -6). It is further alleged by petitioner that she was receiving threatening from henchmen of OP No. 2 and she had to leave Patna for Delhi to reside therewith her brother and she lodged the written complaint to the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna for taking action against OP No. 2 (Annexure -7). Thereafter, at the instigation of OP No. 2, who is presently posted as Labour Commissioner, Patna, Junior Officers of Labour Department started filing series of cases against 5. the father of petitioner and his Company and apprehending danger from their side, the father of petitioner filed an informatory petition on 23.2.2001 (Annexure - 8) and one Ganesh Prasad, Labour Superintendent and Inspecting Officer, Patna has instituted a criminal case under Section 34, Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 against M/s. Patliputra Tobacco Company, which is owned by father of petitioner (Annexures -9 and 9/1). According to the petitioner, OP No. 2 is 10. misusing the privilege of his bail granted to him on 4.9.1997 and, therefore, his bail is liable to be cancelled. 5. OP No. has appeared and has filed reply to show cause notice issued to him stating therein that at the time of considering his prayer for anticipatory bail, the petitioner opposed the prayer but after hearing the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to him. OP No. 2 has denied 15. to have ever interfered with the investigation of the case at any stage and according to him when the petitioner filed CWJC No. 381 of 1997, he did not even oppose her prayer and about filing of case against the father of petitioner is concerned, the case of OP No. 2 is that the case has been filed not only against the father of petitioner but a number of other persons following decisions taken in the departmental meeting headed by Minister, Labour and Employment, Government of 20 Bihar (Annexure -1 to the reply of show -cause filed on behalf of OP No. 2). The OP No. 2 has prayed for dismissal of application of petitioner for cancellation of his bail. 6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, during the course of argument, has submitted that after grant of anticipatory bail, OP No. 2 tried to induce the police which is apparent from Annexure -2 which is a letter issued by Senior SP, Patna to City SP, Patna asking him to take 25. action in the matter only after consultation with him and also from the facts that police, after submitting charge -sheet on the basis of which cognizance was taken again, submitted second investigation report stating the case as of civil nature. The petitioner herself admitted that the second investigation report submitted by police was not accepted by learned CJM, Patna. It is the further case of petitioner that cognizance of the case has already been taken by learned CJM, 30. Patna. Under these circumstances, the letter issued by Senior SP and second investigation report have now got no relevance to the facts of the case and besides, there is nothing on the record to show that the Senior SP, Patna issued the aforesaid direction at the instance of OP No. 2. About filing of case against the father of petitioner by the Labour Department, OP No. 2 has shown that not only against the father of petitioner but against a number of other persons who were found at 35. default, cases by Labour Department, have been lodged and these cases have been lodged in pursuance to policy of Government of Bihar. There is nothing on the record to show that father of petitioner ever challenged filing of case against him by Labour Department in any Court and there was any finding that he has been falsely implicated in that case. Besides this, anticipatory bail was granted to OP No. 2 as back as on 4.9.1997 that is about four years ago. 40. 7 The petitioner has not been able to bring anything to show that after grant of bail, OP No. 2 in any manner, has misused the privilege of his bail. Although, in her application, petitioner has stated that she was receiving threatening from the henchmen of OP No. 2 but then it is vague allegation. 8. I, therefore, find no merit in the application of petitioner and the same is dismissed.