AMARNATH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is complainant's application u/S.439(2), Cr. P.C. challenging the legality of grant of bail to the non-applicants by order dt. 23-10-1989 passed by Shri M. S. A. Siddiquee, Sessions Judge, Shahdol in bail application No.940/89, directing release of the non-applicants on bail on their furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds for a sum of Rs.3,000/- each. The applicant not only prays for revocation of the said bail but also that the non-applicants Nos.2 and 3 be arrested and committed to judicial custody pending trial.

(2.) The applicant is the father of late Smt. Sushma Gupta who unfortunately died in the night between 7/ 8th Oct.1989. There appears to be no dispute that the said, Smt. Sushma Gupta was married to Shri Pankaj Gupta, the son of the non-applicants 2 and 3 on 2nd Feb. 1987 and a son was born to her on 7-9-1988. The applicant had lodged a report with the Officer Incharge of Police Station, Shahdol, on 8-10-1989 alleging that the non-applicants Nos. 2 and 3 and their son Pankaj Gupta had been treating his daughter Smt. Sushma Gupta with cruelty and demanding dowry. He further alleged that he had spent about Rs. 80,000/- at the time of marriage and had given dowry to the best of his capacity. The applicant alleged that the death of Smt. Sushma Gupta was not accidental. The non-applicants, the applicant alleged had either forced her to commit suicide or had caused death by burning her. It appears that following the said complaint, the non-applicants Nos. 2 and 3 and their son were arrested on 12-10-1989, on allegation of offence punishable u/S. 304-B, IPC. The non-applicants 2 and 3 filed their bail application on 23-10-1989, which was heard and decided on the same date directing release of the non-applicants on bail. According to the learned Judge, case diary contains a letter written by Smt. Sushma Gupta wherein she has stated that she was committing suicide on her own and nobody should be blamed for the same. The learned Judge further noticed that the non-applicants No. 2 is an Advocate practicing at Shahdol and non-applicant No. 3 is his wife and, there was nothing on record to indicate that they will misuse the liberty granted to them. It was mainly on these two grounds that the bail has been granted.

(3.) The submission of the applicant is that the learned Sessions Judge has disregarded the law on the subject and has not even looked into the facts of the case to ascertain whether it was a fit case for releasing the non-applicants on bail. According to the applicant, the so called letter, even on bare examination, indicates that it was of doubtful origin and if facts of the case were taken into consideration, it would have been possible to hold that it was not a case of suicide but a case of murder. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, however, is that the respondents are respectable citizens, have not misused the liberty so far and, therefore, there is no reason to recall the bail order.