MOOL CHAND Vs. MATA DEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2), Cr PC of accused -non -petitioner has been filed by the petitioner brother of deceased Smt Manju.

(2.) AN FIR was lodged by complainant petitioner at Police Station Laxmangarh District Sikar on 8 -8 -1987 against the accused -non -petitioner and his mother under Sections 304(B), 498A and 201, IPC inter alia it was alleged that Smt. Manju was tortured for bringing more dowry and she died on account of this on July 28, 1987. The accused -non -petitioner was granted bait by this Court vide order dated February 18, 1988.

(3.) THE contention of Shri N.L. Tibrewal, learned Counsel for the non -petitioners is that Ghanshyam and Goverdhan are near relatives of deceased Manju and nothing was concealed in the affidavits which have been filed not through accused -non -petitioner but were filed by the deponents themselves. It is also given out that the reliance was not placed only on two affidavits but on several other documents including letters written by deceased Manju to her husband and complainant Mool Chand as also non -petitioner Mata Deen himself. Nemi Chand, father of deceased Manju had also given in written on July 31, 1987 that his daughter had not been murdered but had died by natural death and that every thing given in dowry and cash amounting to Rs. 7,000/ - has been returned to him. It is, therefore, contended that no fraud was committed on this Court nor anything was concealed and that the court relied on several documents and circumstances one of which was long delayed FIR before the bail was granted.