Suresh vs Satyawan

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and learned counsel for the State.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly granted bail to respondent No. 1 by equating his case with that of coaccused. He has read over to me paragraph 4 of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar in which it has been mentioned that the coaccused Amrit was granted bail and that the case of respondent No. 1 cannot be distinguished from that of Amrit. He has read over to me the order regarding the bail granted to Amrit. The said order is at Annexure P1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has granted bail to Amrit on the ground that he was residing separately for about last 20 years. This, of course, is a submission made by Advocate of Amrit and seems to be weighed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while granting bail to Amrit.

The question now whether bail granted to respondent No. 1 should be cancelled. Regarding physical harassment caused to the deceased, it is mentioned in the translated version of the FIR which has been reproduced in the petition that on asking Bhani Devi informed that her husband (respondent No. 1) and her Pitasara (brother of her husband''s father, namely, Amrit) did not want to keep her and gave her beating. This is the allegation regarding physical maltreatment or harassment to the deceased. Of course, only absence of physical harassment is not a criteria to be considered while considering whether offence under Section 304B IPC has been committed or not, but it may be considered in proper cases while considering the grant of bail. So far as the physical harassment is concerned, case of Amrit and the respondent No. 1 is the same. However, there is one difference so far as the case of respondent No. 1 is concerned. In the translated version of the complaint it has been mentioned that the brotherinlaw of the complainant, namely, Satyawan (respondent No. 1) is also not worldly wise. In Hindi version, it is mentioned that "kam samajhata hai. Considering this position, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 argued that bail may not be cancelled.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the averments made in paragraph 7 of the petition in which it has been mentioned that the respondent is in a position to tamper with the evidence and has been openly declaring and sending messages to the petitioner that the prosecution of the case should not be pursued and that the granting of bail has clearly emboldened the respondent who is threatening the petitioner and other witnesses with dire consequences. The averments, of course, are that but they are quite vague. So, no weight can be attached to them at this stage.

The learned counsel for the private respondent has cited before me a case of Dolat Ram and others v. State of Haryana, 1995 S.C.C. (Cri) 237. It has been held therein that rejection of bail in a nonbailable offence and cancellation of bail already granted must be considered and dealt with on different basis. It is also held therein that bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.

Looking to the facts stated above and the principles laid down in the judgment of Dolat Ram (supra) I find that bail granted to the private respondent should not be cancelled.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed.