Shyam Lal vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Sarla Devi daughter of Sham Lal was married to Bansi Lal respondent about three years ago. On the intervening night of 24/2561991. Sarla Devi hanged herself to death at her matrimonial house in Siwari. Regarding this incident a report was lodged at Police Station, Farrukhnagar under Sections 498A and 304B of Indian Penal Code, by Shyam Lal, father of the deceased, wherein he alleged that he had given enough dowry to his daughter at the time of her marriage but her husband Bansi Lal and her motherinlaw Shanti Devi respondent were not satisfied with the dowry and they were demanding a scooter. On account of harassment Sarla Devi put an end to her life. Respondents No. 2 and 3 were arrested in connection with this case and they moved an application for bail which was allowed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide his order dated 31.7.1991. The respondents were released on bail on their furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs. 10000/ with two sureties in the like amount each. Shyam Lal has filed this petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail of respondents No. 2 and 3. It was alleged that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had overlooked the facts that the deceased had left behind a suicide note in which the culprits were named after their release from jail respondent No.6 accompanied by 23 persons came to his house on 20.8.1991 and threatened him with dire consequences in case he appeared before the Additional Sessions Judge. He was also asked to withdraw the case. The matter was reported to the local police but no action was taken.

In reply filed to the petition respondent No. 2 Bansi Lal contended that there was not even a suggestion regarding his criminal implication for any offence in the suicide note left by the deceased and there was absolutely no reference regarding demand of dowry. He denied that he had ever gone to the house of the petitioner on 20.8.1991 along with any person and threatened him for appearing before Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. He never asked the petitioner to withdraw the case not any such incident was brought to the notice of the local police.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the record. I have also gone through the suicide note left by the deceased. The suicide note was discussed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon in his order granting bail to respondents No. 2 and 3. The note was silent with respect to demand of dowry from the deceased or her harassment on that account. The trial Court had considered all the aspects of the case before granting the concession of bail to the husband and mother in law of the deceased. Power to grant or refuse bail is not to be exercised by way of punishment before trial. Only material considerations before the Court are :

(i) Whether the accused would be readily available.

(ii) Whether they are likely to misuse the concession of bail by tampering with the evidence.

Discretion of trial Court allowing bail to an accused person is not to be lightly interfered with. Bhadirath Singh v. State of Gujrat, 1984(2) CLR 181 is an authority on this point. In State v. Sanjay Gandhi, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 961 the Supreme Court has observed that rejection of bail when bail is applied for is different to cancellation of bail already granted. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non bailable case then to cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of the bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large be permitted only if by reason of supervening circumstances it would be no longer condusive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial.

In the present case there is nothing to show that the respondents are misusing the concession of bail or in any way tampering with the evidence. The allegations that respondent No. 2 went to the petitioner along with 23 persons and threatened him do not appear to be truthful. The names of the persons who accompanied the respondent are not given. If any such incident had been reported to the police then the application for cancellation of bail must have been presented by the prosecution itself. I, therefore, find that since the respondents never interfered with the course of justice by tampering evidence, there is no ground for cancellation of bail granted to them. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.