HARISH CHANDRA MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by Petitioner has been, filed for cancellation of bail of opposite parties No. 2 to 4 granted by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Arariya in A.B.R No. 110 of 2002.

(2.) The case of Petitioner, in short, is that on 10.03.2002, Chaukidar oi Jokihat Police Station lodged a case against opposite parties No. 2 to 4 and one Birendra Mandal under Sections 498A and 306, Indian Penal Code (In short "I.P.C.") stating in his Fardbayan that deceased Chanchala Devi was married to co-accused Birendra Mandal and after her marriage, she came to her Sasural on a number of times but for some reasons, went back to her Naihar and in the year, 2002 on the day of Basant Panchami, she came to her Sasural and from that very day, opposite parties No. 2 to 4 and her husband, co-accused Birendra Mandal started scolding and torturing her and on account of their behaviour, deceased used to remain disturbed and on 10.03.2002, in the morning, there was a hulla that deceased committed suicide by hanging herself and when the Chaukidar went to her Sasural, he found that dead body of Chanchala Devi was hanging through a Sari in the hook of ceiling. The Chaukidar further alleged in his Fardbayan that he believed that deceased Chanchala Devi committed suicide on account of torture at the hands of opposite parties No. 2 to 4 and her husband co-accused Birendra Mandal. According to the Petitioner, who is father of deceased Chanchala Devi, the Chaukidar and others found scratch on the cheek of the deceased and black mark on the neck and that sufficient proof existed to show that deceased had not committed suicide by hanging herself, but it is a case of strangulation by accused persons but he and other persons were restrained from approaching the police. The further case of Petitioner is that he used to receive demand of motorcycle from opposite parties No. 2 to 4 and husband of deceased and he had avoided Bidai because he apprehended risk on the life of his deceased daughter but he was persuaded by husband of deceased on axount of Puja. The further case of Petitioner is that he was expecting police to come to him when he would expose accused persons about their misdeeds but police did not come to him and except for mechanical recording of statement, the police did not come and apprehending attempts to push up the entire cas-a by police, Petitioner filed a protest petition in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 10.04.2002 (Annexure-2). The further case of the Petitioner is that police acted in connivance with the accused persons and it did not take steps to arrest them and Superintendent of Police had directed the Investigating Officer to treat the case true under Section 304B, I.P.C. and investigate the case properly and had also directed him to arrest the accused persons immediately but Investigating Officer connived with accused persons and when opposite parties No. 2 to 4 prayed for anticipatory bail tefore 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Arariya, he was pleased to call for case diary which was produced by the Public Prosecuter but entire case diary was not brought to the notice of Court below and opposite parties No. 2 to 4 were granted bail. Petitioner has further.stated that inspite of sufficient material in the case diary, it appears that full facts were not placed before the Court below which granted bail to opposite parties No. 2 to 4 and there are several observations In the order passed granting anticipatory bail to opposite parties No. 2 to 4 which are likely to prejudice the case of informant during trial. According to the Petitioner, anticipatory bail granted to opposite parties No. 2 to 4 has virtually emboldened them and they are giving threats to him and others for changing their version before police which amounts to misusing the privilege of bail and Petitioner has filed an informatory petition bringing the misdeeds of accused persons before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arariya and he has also prayed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner has prayed for cancellation of bail of opposite parties No. 2 to 4.

(3.) Opposite parties No. 2 to 4 have appeared and have filed counter-affidavit stating therein that they have been falsely implicated in the present case in which police, after investigation, has submitted chargesneet and cognizance has also been taken under Sections 304B, 498A, 120B, I.P.C. (Annexure-A of counter-affidavit). According to opposite parties No. 2 to 4, in fact, it was the case triable only under Section 306, I.P.C. as per the case of prosecution and post mortem examination report and Petitioner is blackmailing them after deceased committed suicide and Petitioner falsely filed the petition on 12.10.2002 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria in which his main grievance was that police was hostile to him and everything was being done favourably with intent to help the accused persons and Petitioner in his petition has further stated that the higher officials like Deputy Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police supervised the case and gave clear direction to Investigating Officer to proceed treating the case to be true under Section 304B, I.P.C. but as it appears from case diary, Investigating Officer being hostile, is not following the directions of his superiors and everything was being done at the sweet will of accused persons. According to opposite parties No. 2 to 4, the Petitioner has not attached copy of this petition which he filed with his application but they have filed the copy of the petition which is Annexure-B of counter-affidavit. Their case is that after investigation, police submitted chargesheet under Sections 304B, 498A, 120B, I.P.C. and cognizance has also been taken in the aforesaid sections" by the Court below which is apparent from the order dated 20.02.2003 of Court below (Annexure-A of counter-affidavit) and entire allegation of informant that Investigating Officer was not following the directions of his superiors for treating the case true under Section 304B, I.P.C, has no meaning. From the impugned order by which opposite parties No. 2 to 4 were granted anticipatory bail by Court below, I find that after perusing case diary and some photographs showing the presence of father, uncle and brother of deceased at the time of funeral of deceased and considering the fact that none from the side of Naihar of deceased filed the case which was filed by the Chaukidar and also considering statement of a number of witnesses who did not tell about the demand of dowry and torture to deceased, the Court below granted anticipatory bail to opposite parties No. 2 to 4 who are, admittedly, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother of husband of deceased. The main grievance of Petitioner, as it appears from the petition dated 12.10.2002 (Annexure-B of counter-affidavit), was that the Investigating Officer was not following the directions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police for treating the case to be true under Sections 304B, 498A and 120B, I.P.C. Now as stated above, cognizance under Sections 304B, 498A, 120B, Indian Penal Code has already been taken by the Court below. Besides this, Petitioner has not been able to show anything on the basis of which it can be said that opposite parties No. 2 to 4, after grant of bail, have in any way misused the privilege of bail. Mere allegation that they are threatening the Petitioner and his witnesses to change their version cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail particularly when there is no other material supporting this type of allegation. I find force in the arguments advanced on behalf of opposite parties No. 2 to 4 that this Court at this stage cannot decide the merit of the order by which opposite parties No. 2 to 4 have been granted bail by Court below and inspite of this fact, the order by which opposite parties No. 2 to 4 have been granted bail by Court below is a well-discussed and reasoned order and because the Petitioner has not been able to come forward with any cogent material to show that opposite parties No. 2 to 4, after grant of bail, have in any way misused the privilege of bail or put any obstruction in the investigation of the case, the prayer of Petitioner cannot be allowed.