Ashok Kumar Banga vs Yadav Rai and ors.

Harphul Singh Brar, J.

It is an application for cancellation of bail granted to Yadav Rai son of Kanshi Ram and Kanshi Ram son of Nand Lal, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala vide his order, dated September 25, 1990, in a case under Sections 304B/306/34, Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case is that marriage between Yadav Rai and Nirmala Devi was solemised about six years ago and from this wedlock Nirmala Devi gave birth to a daughter who is aged about 31/2 years. Her husband and inlaws illtreated her because of her having not brought sufficient dowry in the marriage. It is urged in the First Information Report that at about 3.30 P.M. on July 12, 1990 the brother of Nirmala Devi (deceased) named Ashok Kumar went to see her at her inlaws house. He saw her burning and tying on the ground.After that, he went back to his home town Nabha and returned to Barnala along with his relatives on the same day and the matter was reported at about 9.30 P.M. at Police Station, Barnala. It is further alleged that the six accused persons were present in their house when the first informant Ashok Kumar saw his sister Nirmala Devi burning and that all of them were in jovial mood, notwithstanding the ghastly scene of her person on fire.

It is alleged that earlier as well as subsequent to the settlement of the matrimonial dispute, these accused persons nursed a grouse against the deceased on account of her not having brought sufficient dowry in the marriage and in that eventuality she fell a victim to their greed for on money.

After considering the whole evidence on the record the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala allowed bail to Yadav Rai and Kanshi Ram, accusedrespondent. While granting the concession of bail to the accused persons, the Additional Sessions Judge apart from, other points, discussed about the lodging of the First Information Report as under :

"It has been seriously contended at the Bar that the FIR was not lodged at 9.30 P.M. on July 12. 1990 and that rather in all probability it was brought into being at some subsequent point of time as a result of deliberations/consultations and this contention merits notice. Ashok Kumar brother of Nirmala Devi (deceased) was the first informant. Version set out in the FIR discloses that off and on he used to visit Barnala to see his sister, that as usual he went to her house at 3. 10 P.M. on July 12, 1990 and that he found her person on fire and raising shrieks. The crucial word in the FIR is the word `Kal'' i.e. yesterday. And FIR is dated July 12, 1990. Occurrence in question took place on July 12, 1990. Thus, the submission of the defence is that the FIR was recorded on July 13, 1990 and not on July 2, 1990. Further aid for it is invoked from the fact that special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate at 3.05 P.M. on July 13, 1990. To put it differently, according to the defence, FIR was not promot and was rather lodged much belatedly, the intervening period having been utilised in putting a thought out and fabricated version."

A mention was made about the conduct of enquiry by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sangrur also, as under :

"On the application made by the complainant side to the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, was asked to conduct inquiry/investigation into the allegations disclosed therein. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sangrur accordingly made partial investigation in the instant case. I have gone through his documented investigation. Contention of the defence that on the day in question the accused Yadav Rai went out of station in the morning is not belied therefrom. Rather, it appears therefrom that the deceased (Nirmala Devi) served to him his breakfast and it was thereafter that he left Barnala on the day in question."

5A. After going through the facts of this case and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to interfere in the discretion exercised by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur in granting bail to the accused respondents, as neither any allegations nor any material have been brought to my notice which would necessitate interference with the discretionary power of the lower Court to grant the concession of bail. The material considerations for cancellation of bail are, whether the accused persons would be readily available for their trial and they are not likely to abuse the discretion granted in their favour, by tampering with the evidence. There is no material on the record which could show that after the grant of bail to the accused, they tried to tamper with the prosecution evidence or threatened or intimidated the eyewitnesses. Bail is a privilege and can be cancelled if there is a preponderance of probabilities that the person who is on bail has attempted to tamper with the prosecution evidence or has threatened the witnesses in such a manner that it would prejudice the trial of the case. Moreover, in this case even the State did not think it advisable to file an application for cancellation of bail. The grounds canvassed at the bar for cancellation of the bail are that the accusedrespondents as well as coaccused are openly proclaiming that the petitioner and his family may do whatever they like and they have got sufficiently long arms to deal with the persons who seek to support the case set up against them and that the First Information Report was recorded on July 12, 1990, but the accusedrespondents were not arrested by the local Police till July 22, 1990 when pressure was brought by the general public about the inaction of the police, that the petitioner being an outsider (resident of Nabha) is not in a position to ask the prosecution to support the case, the manner in which the learned lower Court has proceeded has not only resulted in grant of bail to the accusedrespondents but it will seriously prejudice the trial of the case itself, and that the accused respondents are wealthy and highly influential persons. After having committed such a gruesome crime they have been able to manage with the local police as well as the Doctors of Civil Hospital, Barnala to give favourable version/opinion. It is pertinent to note that it this case on the application made by the complainant side to the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, was asked to conduct on enquiry/investigation into the allegations disclosed therein. That investigation report was taken into consideration by the learned Additional Session Judge while granting bail to the accused respondents.

In view of what has been discussed above and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application for cancellation of bail is dismissed.