OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF J. & K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MST . Anuradha who was married to the respondent in June, 1989, was found dead by burning on Jan. 27,1990 in the house of respondent resulting in the registration of F.I.R. No. 20/1990 Police Station Nawabad under Section 306 and Section 498 -A of RP.C. The respondent -husband was arrested by the police station Nawabad on Jan. 30, 1990. The application of bail filed by the respondent was rejected by the learned City Judge Judicial Magistrate, Jammu vide his spraking order passed on 7.2.1990 who held: "I have heard the counsel for the accused and the P.O. and have gone through the C.D., file carefully. From the perusal of the C.D. file it reveals that there was a mis -understanding between husband (Ravi Kumar) and his wife deceased Anuradhaon the basis of dowry. The accused was demanding car and on the basis of dowry, she was mal -treated and due to the cruelty of the husband the deceased set fire to herself and committed suicide. In these days the dowry system is very prevalent in the society as the people are being harassed on the basis of dowry. It is very difficult for the poor people to adjust their daughters because they cannot pull the demands of the society with regard to dowry. The offence 498 -A, R.P.C. is thus punishable with less penalty but it is such an offence which is not against the individual but against the society as a whole. The whole society is suffering with such evil. The offence under Section 498 -A, R.P.C. is non -bailable. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts of the case, the court does not find any reason to accept the application. Hence the application is rejected."

(2.) INSTEAD of approaching the higher court for the grant of bail, respondent filed an application before the Sub Judge Judicial Magistrate, Jammu on 11.2.1990 who in his over -enthusiasm to decide the application directed the Crime Branch Jammu to send the detailed report by next day till noon and granted the bail to the respondent vide his order dated 13.2.1990 holding that the accused was in police custody for the last about 14 days and the police has not rightly or wrongly completed the investigation, therefore, any further detention of the accused in police custody is not warranted.

(3.) AFTER admitting this revision petition, a report was obtained from the Judicial Magistrate asking him to explain the circumstances which prompted him to grant the bail to the respondent despite his knowledge of the rejection of the bail application by the City Judge Judicial Magistrate, Jammu. In compliance to the direction, the concerned Magistrate has submitted his detailed explanation justifying his order passed granting bail to the respondent. However, despite direction, the learned Govt. Advocate has not produced the case diaries.