- (1.) 4/ 4.5.12. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the State and also learned counsel appearing for the informant on the matter of bail.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that on the allegation made by Mushrat Parveen, wife of the appellant no.5 that after marriage when she came to her in-laws' place, she was subjected to torture on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry, a First information report was lodged on 17.9.2004 which was registered under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code against these appellants, husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law. In that case when the appellants were put on trial, they were convicted and on appeal being preferred, they were admitted to bail. However, on 20.8.2008 another first information report was lodged putting the same allegation of subjection to cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of the demand of car which was taken up for investigation and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for an offence punishable under Section 498(A) and also under Section 313 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, though no such allegation of causing miscarriage of pregnancy was there in the first information report and then even during course of trial, no cogent evidence was adduced before the court for establishing the charge under Section 313 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 as one of the Doctors, P.W.7 has deposed that the informant was having problem form before and was prone to recurrent abortion whereas P.W.1 another Doctor has categorically deposed before the court that no external injury was found on the person of the informant, though the allegation which had been made in the first information report was that she had severely been beaten by the appellants and under the circumstances, the appellants deserve to be admitted on bail. As against this, Mr.Mahesh Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the informant submitted that it is true that two first information reports have been lodged for an offence under Section 498(A) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 but that has been lodged under different circumstances. One was lodged when after the marriage the informant was subjected to cruelty whereas other was lodged when in course of hearing bail, the appellant no.5 made statement before the court that he is ready to keep his wife with all dignity and on such assurance, when the informant came to her in-law's place under the order of the court to restore her matrimonial status, the appellants again started putting forth demand and on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, she was assaulted at number of times and, therefore, second F.I.R was lodged. It was further submitted that on the basis of the evidence, the court has come to the clear finding that the miscarriage took place in Lifeline Nursing Home because of assault committed by her husband, father-in-law, mother-in- law and sister-in-law. Evidence was also led to the effect that on the very next day of the lodgment of the case she had had profused bleeding and started feeling pain in her abdomen and ultimately, miscarriage took place on 23.8.2008. Under the circumstances, the appellants do not deserve to be admitted on bail. It was further pointed out that though the appellants have been admitted to bail in other appeal but this Court had fixed the case for hearing. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that though the finding has been recorded that miscarriage took place on account of the fact that the prosecutrix had been subjected to assault but it is strange enough to note that no such allegation of causing miscarriage was there in the first information report lodged on 20.8.2008. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named appellants, during the pendency of this appeal, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sessions Judge III, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in S.T. No.89 of 2009. Since the Cr. App (S.J) No.555 of 2009 had already been ordered to be fixed for hearing, let this also be heard along with that appeal.;