D.K.SINHA,J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS Cr. Revision application is directed against the order impugned dated 19th March, 2007 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, VI, Ranchi in Cr. Misc. No.12 of 2006 by which the bail granted to the petitioner under Section 437 Code of Criminal Procedure on 17.02.2006 by C.J.M., Ranchi in Doranda (Argora) P.S. Case No. 207.of 2003 corresponding to G.R.No.2143 of 2003 was set aside and he was called upon to appear before the Court concerned to be taken into judicial custody. The prosecution story in short as narrated by the informant-Opposite Party No.2 (Kumari Anuja Das @ Pushpi) herein is reproduced hereunder :- Kumari Anuja Das @ Pushpi was married to the petitioner on 09.05.1997 and after the marriage the accused persons including the petitioner had been demanding colour T.V., fridge and cash to the tune of Rs.1 lakh. When she expressed inability of her parents to meet out their demands, she was subjected to cruelty and mental harassment in various ways at the hands of the petitioner-husband and other accused persons who were none other than her in-laws. She anyhow came to Ranchi and filed a Complaint Case No. 269 of 2000 in the Court of.C.J.M., Ranchi against the petitioner and others. However, the accused persons pressurized her and a compromise was effected on 02.07.2000.and pursuant to that she went to her matrimonial home but again she confronted with the similar situation of torture and mental harassment for dowry at the instance of the accused persons. In the meantime, she became pregnant and she was sent to her parental home. None from her matrimonial home did take care to look after in spite of knowing the fact that a male child was born to her. On 24.06.2001 the petitioner along with other members of his family came to her parental home and reiterated demand of Rs.80,000/- in place of Rs.1 lakh. On 13.10.2002. the petitioner-husband again came there and forcibly obtained her signatures on blank papers in spite of her protest. Finding no way out she was taken by her father to her matrimonial home at Bhabhua (Bihar) where her father delivered a sum of Rs.10,000/- to her father-in-law against the money demanded. Yet, the amount did not satisfy the greed of the accused persons and finally, the petitioner-husband attempted to commit her murder by strangulating her and also by making an attempt to set her body on fire after pouring k oil. As the petitioner-husband was a police personnel in the service of U.P. Police, it was only because of intervention of the Superintendent of Police, Ranchi F.I.R. could be accepted, the informant added, which was registered as Doranda.(Argora) P.S. Case No. 207 of 2003 for the alleged offence under Sections 341/323/498A I.P.C. and under Section of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
(3.) IT is evident from the record that the petitioner was admitted to bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. on the day of his surrender by the impugned order dated 17.02.2006 recorded by the C.J.M., Ranchi in Doranda (Argora) P.S. Case No. 207 of 2003 on the following grounds :- " The learned defence Counsel has submitted that it is a case of false implication. My attention has been drawn towards the facts that the other accused persons have been enlarged on bail in A.B.A.169 of 2004 by the Hon'ble Court. My attention has also been drawn towards the annexure in which it has been said that compromise was made and it is found that father of the informant had brought a false case. My attention has also been drawn towards the fact that matrimonial case no. 6/2000 was brought by this accused petitioner against the informant for restitution of conjugal rights and it will be apparent from the record that the informant never remained with the accused petitioner. It has been argued that after lapse of six years of marriage, the demand of dowry usually does not arise. My attention has been drawn towards the fact that after a few years of marriage, the status of bride and bridegroom converts into the status of wife and husband and in such a case provision of dowry act will not be applicable. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond for Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each." ;