NANDAN SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During course of hearing submission made on behalf of appellants relating to grant of bail under the guise of Sec. 389(1) of the Crimial P.C., L. C. record has been gone through and finding unusual situation, has been directed to be listed for hearing on merit whereupon listed. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

(2.) For better consideration of rival submission, first of all, brief facts of the case is to be noted down :- From the record of the lower Court, it is evident that a dead body of a woman namely, Bhagwati Devi, wife of Shivnandan Sah (subsequently traced out) was found over Railway track near railway crossing no.49 and for that, Begusarai Rail P.S. U.D. Case No.11 of 1999 (dated 19.12.1999) was registered. While the aforesaid eventuality was persisting, Complaint Case No.1408C of 1999 was filed by father of the Bhagwati Devi namely Jitendra Sah arraying altogether eight accused persons namely Nandan Sah, Shivnandan Sah, Mantun Sah, wife of Nandan Sah, Shibu Sah, wife of Shibu Sah, Suresh Sah and Naresh Sah for causing dowry death of his daughter Bhagwati Devi, who was married with accused Shivnandan Sah, son of Mantun Sah on 07.06.1998. Though, in the aforesaid complaint petition, which was filed on 22.12.1999, the allegations have been fully detailed with further disclosure that dead body was thrown near railway crossing no.49, but nothing was said about registration of U.D. Case No.11 of 1999, whereupon the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, finding it to be within the jurisdiction of Railway Magistrate, sent the complaint to Railway Magistrate vide order dated 23.12.1999, on which date, the Railway Magistrate directed the concerned Police Station to register and investigate in accordance with Sec. 156(3) of the Crimial P.C., but the said order was never complied with on account of which vide order dated 22.03.2002, the order dated 23.12.1999 was recalled and the learned lower Court proceeded in accordance with Sec. 202 Crimial P.C. and further, concluding the same vide order dated 30.12.2004, took cognizance of an offence punishable under Sec. 304B, 34, 201, 498A of the I.P.C. and summoned the aforesaid eight accused persons namely Nandan Sah, Shivnandan Sah, Mantun Sah, wife of Nandan Sah, Shibu Sah, wife of Shibu Sah, Suresh Sah and Naresh Sah to face trial.

(3.) It is further evident that while the aforesaid Complaint Petition was pending and being proceeded with an inquiry under Sec. 202 Crimial P.C., the informant Jitendra Sah gave his fard-bayan on 16.02.2003 to the same effect against the same accused disclosing the fact that as the police did not register a case over his fard-bayan at an earlier occasion, on account thereof, Complaint Case was filed, but as disclosed by his conducting lawyer that the Court had directed to register a case even then, case has not been registered and so, instant fard-bayan is being given and on the basis thereof, Rail P. S. Case No.02 of 2003 was registered against the aforesaid eight accused persons, who stood named in Complaint Case No.1408C of 1999, who have been summoned vide order dated 30.12.2004, as disclosed above.