S.S. Saron, J. - (1.) AN affidavit of Shri Randhir Singh, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Head Quarter), Sonepat on behalf of Respondent No.1 -State of Haryana filed today in the Court, is taken on record.
(2.) HEARD counsel for the parties. The Petitioner, who is the complainant in case FIR No. 4 dated 10.01.2010, registered at Police Station Murthal, District Sonepat, for the offences under Sections 498 -A, 304B and 34 IPC, seeks cancellation of bail granted to Rajesh/mother -in -law and Mahavir/father -in -law of the deceased -Babita. It has been alleged by the complainant -Petitioner that his sister Babita was married to Satish alias Bablu on 14.12.2006. In the marriage, the mother of the complainant -Petitioner had given dowry more than her capacity. A motorcycle was also given on the demand of the in -laws of Babita. However, despite the dowry given, Babita was harassed and asked to bring more dowry. The Petitioner gave Rs. 2.00 lacs on one occasion and thereafter , his sister Babita was kept properly for about six months. Thereafter, they again beat her and asked her to bring Rs. 3.00 lacs. The sister of the Petitioner was sent back to the parental home. With the intervention of the Panchayat, the Petitioner had sent his sister to her matrimonial home after convincing her. On 10.01.2010, the Petitioner received a call on his mobile phone from his uncle Kartar Singh, who informed that his sister had died. It is alleged that the sister of the complainant namely Babita has been killed by administering poison to her in the greed for dowry by her husband Satish, mother -in -law Rajesh (Respondent No. 2), Father -in -law Mahavir (Respondent No. 3), younger brother of father -in -law -Ramphool, aunt of the deceased namely Poonam and brother -in -law of the sister of the complainant namely Amit, besides, sister -in -law Puja and Priti. Except Satish, husband of Babita, all other accused, in the investigation conducted, were initially found innocent. In terms of the challan filed on 19.2.2010, they were not sent up for trial. Challan was filed only against Satish -husband of the deceased -Babita. The other accused were placed in column No. 2 of the challan. Thereafter, a supplementary challan dated 3.8.2010 was prepared, after re -investigation of the case which was conducted by Sh. Badri Parshad DSP, Sonepat. The said supplementary challan was presented against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as well, who were the parents -in -law of the deceased -Babita. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide order dated 4.6.2010 (Annexure P -1) granted bail to Rajesh (Respondent No. 2). Thereafter, vide order dated 28.07.2010 (Annexure P -2) the bail was granted to Mahavir (Respondent No. 3). The Petitioner seeks cancellation of the said bail granted to Respondent Nos. 2 to 3 vide order dated 4.6.2010 (Annexure P -1) and 28.7.2010 (Annexure P -2) respectively.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been erroneously granted bail by learned trial court. It is submitted that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 misrepresented the facts that they were living separately in their house. In fact, they were living together with their children including Satish and his wife Babita (deceased) as per Ration Card (Annexure P -3). Therefore, it is submitted that the bail has wrongly been granted. It is submitted that the Supreme Court in Brij Nandan Jaiswal v. Munna Alias Munna Jaiswal and Anr. : (2009) 1 SCC 678 has held that it is not as if once a bail is granted by any Court, the only way is to get it cancelled on account of its misuse and bail order can be tested on merits also.;