Ajaib Singh vs Bimla Devi and Another

M.L. Singhal, J.—Smt. Somta Devi d/o Sawan Ram r/o Village Kiareda Khurd, P.S. Sadar, Yamunanagar was married to Jagir s/o Nanha Ram r/o Unehri on 25.5.1995. He had given dowry befitting his financial position and status in marriage. After having stayed with her husband for 16-17days of marriage, Smt. Somta Devi came to her parents and told them that her husband Jagir and his elder brother''s wife Bimla were taunting her and harassing her as they were not satisfied with the dowry which she had brought in marriage and had desired her to bring Rs. 10,000/- from her parents if she wanted her rehabilitation into the matrimonial home. Thereupon, Nanha Ram father of Jagir was called at the house of Sawah Ram-father of Somta Devi at Village Kareda Khurd and appraise him that Somta Devi had been beaten and that his son Jagir and his daughter-in-law Bimla were laying demand for Rs. 10,000/- upon Somta Devi and that they were not able to fulfil this demand as they were poor. Nanha Ram assured them that in future there would be no repetition of such demand or ill treatment to Somta Devi.

On 27.6.1995, Jagir took Somta Devi to Village Unehri and at about 4.30 p.m. on 2.7.1995, Karam Chand s/o Nanha Ram informed the family that Somta Devi had expired on 2.7.1995 at 2/2.30 p.m. On receipt of this information Ajaib Singh, Bisakhi Ram, Budh Ram and Rulia etc. went to Village Unehri and found Somta Devi lying dead in a room with bums. Somta Devi burnt herself to death because she was unable to bear the taunts, harassment and torture at the hands of her husband Jagir and Jethani-Bimla whose demand for dowry, she could not fulfil. Case FIR No. 138 dated 2.7.1995 was registered under Sections 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Radaur against Jagir and Smt. Bimla on the statement of Ajaib Singh uncle of Somta Devi. Jagir and Smt. Bimla Devi were arrested as a sequel to this case.

Mr. B.L. Singal, Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagadhri allowed bail to Smt. Bimla vide order dated 21.7.1995.

Ajaib Singh uncle of Somta Devi who is author of this FIR has moved an application u/s 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the cancellation of bail allowed to Bimla Devi by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagadhri vide order dated 21.7.1995. It has been submitted by Mr. N.L. Sammi learned Counsel for the complainant/author of this FIR that Somta Devi was married on 25.5.1995. She was sacrificed at the altar of dowry on 1.7.1995 i.e., barely after 37 days of her marriage by her husband Jagir and Jethani-Bimla. It was a dowry death. Dowry deaths are on the increase. Dowry deaths are a great social stigma. Legislature has in its wisdom provided imprisonment for life for ''dowry death''. While providing imprisonment for life for dowry death. Legislature was aware of the gravity and seriousness of the evil of dowry deaths confronting the Indian Society. It has been submitted that Addl. Sessions Judge should not have been casual in his approach and allowed bail to Bimla Devi barely after 17-18 days of her arrest. While allowing bail to Bimla Devi who is accused of dowry death, learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not show scant regard for the sentiments of the society so well brought out by the Legislature in Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 113-A and 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge also forgot that Bimla Devi was a prime accused as she was the perpetrator of the demand for dowry. He should have imagined the seriousness of harassment and torture being inflicted upon Somta Devi which compelled her to end her life so soon after marriage. Grant of bail at the very initial stage stultifies investigation also. Smt. Somta Devi was being harassed and tortured by all the members of the family of her husband, but, the police proceeded only against Bimla and Jagir. Police did not proceed against others. Grant of flail to Bimla in the very initial stage has injured severely the cause of justice as it has added fuel to the fire so far as complainant side is concerned.

While allowing bail to Bimla, I think Additional Sessions Judge has taken into account mat she is a woman and has three small children, one is a suckling child and dowry, if brought, would benefit the husband or his parents and Jethani is not benefitted who was putting up separately with her husband since 1992 and was holding a separate ration card.

Grant or refusal of bail is in the discretion of the Court. Grant of bail is governed by different considerations. Cancellation of bail is governed by different considerations. Very cogent and over-whelming circumstances are necessary for seeking cancellation of bail. Even where prima facie case is established, the approach of the Court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment but whether the presence of the accused would be readily available for trial or he is likely to abuse the direction exercised in his favour by tampering with the evidence.

No useful purpose would be served so far as investigation goes if bail allowed to Bimla by the Addl. Sessions Judge is cancelled by this Court now. That would only satisfy the spirit of vengeance of the parents of Somta Devi against Bimla and the family of Somta Devi''s husband. The object of Criminal Law is not to harm the parties to satisfy their personal vendetta. Its object is to vindicate the aspirations of the society and fulfil its needs. In Bhagirathsinh Judeja Vs. State of Gujarat, , accused was allowed bail merely after 5 days of his arrest when the accusation against the accused was that he had given knife blows to one Popatlal Sorathia who had come to visit an indoor patient on August 17, 1983 around 9.45 a.m. and he was accosted by the policeman on duty. Offence u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against him and he was taken into custody. Popatlal Sorathia was a helpless victim and had gone to the hospital for pre-operation check-up and he was a leading social and political worker. High Court of Gujarat cancelled me bail allowed to him by the Sessions fudge. On appeal the Hon''ble Supreme Court restored the order allowing bail passed by the Sessions Judge and set aside the order passed by the High Court cancelling the bail observing that the matter pending before the High Court was not whether bail should be granted, but whether the bail allowed to the accused by the Sessions Judge should be cancelled. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of bail.

In this case, the Addl. Sessions Judge appears to have acted in haste while allowing bail to Bimla barely after 17 days of her arrest. He forgot that Bimla was one of the prime accused responsible for the death of her Devrani who was married to her Devar barely 38 days before her death. Addl. Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the intention and anxiety of me Legislature while enacting Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 113-A and 113-B of the Evidence Act. Additional Sessions Judge has failed to weigh the pros and cons of allowing bail to only the prime accused in this case.

In view of what has been discussed above, I do not see any reason to cancel the bail allowed to Smt. Bimla Devi-accused by Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagadhri. So, this criminal miscellaneous application is dismissed.