S.G. Shah, J. - (1.) HEARD learned advocate Mr. Rajesh K. Shah for the applicant, learned advocate Mr. Kaushal D. Pandya for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 being original accused Nos. 2 to 4 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for respondent No. 1. The petitioner is original complainant.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 20th October, 2014 by 5th Additional Sessions Judge Court at Vadodara in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2106 of 2014, whereby the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had been granted anticipatory bail for the offences punishable under sections 306, 323, 498A and 114 of Indian Penal Code, pursuant to J.P. Road Police Station, Vadodara bearing 1st C.R. No. 172 of 2014. Petitioner is father of the victim and he lodged a complaint on 4th January, 2011 contending that his daughter and victim Aaisha had been married to one Maksud Ahmed, son of respondent No. 2 and 3 on 17th February, 2014. It is further disclosed that respondent No. 3 Ruksanaben is real younger sister of the complainant and after the marriage, his daughter was staying with her husband with respondents in joint family at Vadodara and that his brother -in -law who is also father -in -law of his daughter, i.e. respondent No. 2, is serving as Engineer in PWD and that marriage was accorded after discussion between the family members and with the willingness of all of them. However, after the marriage in June, 2014 when victim came to the house of complainant (her father), it is revealed that she was unhappy at her matrimonial house, since respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were misbehaving and beating her, and her husband Mauksud, instead of helping her supported the respondents. All of them are accused. They were blaming and torturing the victim by saying that they have committed mistake in selecting her as wife of their son, since they were under impression that if they select a girl from village she would do the labourer work of the house but she is not good selection again for the son, and that they have engaged a maid servant. Thereby there were differences and disturbance in her marriage life and when complainant has tried to resolve it, respondent No. 2 has got annoyed and stated that he wants wife for his son who could do household work and not a daughter. Thereafter in August, 2014 when complainant had been to Vadodara to call his daughter, he had occasion to meet the respondent No. 2. When it was learnt that they were torturing and harassing the victim and when complainant has met them, they quarreled with the complainant and also threatened that do not care for his daughter, otherwise they will see that his daughter does not, thereby complainant was restrained from meeting his own daughter. The victim had conveyed to take her back to paternal house apprehending that she may be killed by the respondents. Thereafter, in October, 2014, complainant has received a message from his brothers to take his daughter back and thereupon he conveyed to the respondent No. 2 requesting to take his daughter back, but he had not sent her, stating that the expenditure of marriage has yet not been recovered and denied to allow the victim to go to the complainant's house. After such incident on 10th October, 2014, complainant has received another call disclosing that his daughter locked herself in the room and therefore they rushed to Vadodara. Where they found that their daughter was dead, at that time respondent No. 3 disclosed to them that she hanged herself onto a fan. Thereupon, police was informed and postmortem was performed, complainant has lodged complaint aforesaid.
(3.) PENDING such complaint, accused have prayed for anticipatory bail which was granted as aforesaid. Hence, petitioner -complainant has challenged the legality of such order.;