IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9292 of 2011 BALARAM PODDAR SON OF LATE SATISH CHANDRA PODDAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.8746 of 2011 CHIRANJIB PODDAR SON OF BALRAM PODDAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 18.04.2011 Heard learned Sr. counsels for the petitioners and the complainant. The petitioner being the father-in-law is apprehending his arrest in a complaint case in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, whereas, other petitioner being the husband, languishing in custody since 05.12.2010, is seeking regular bail. The regular bail application of the husband has been placed before this Court in pursuance to the order dated 25.03.2011. The marriage was performed on 16.01.2001 at Calcutta whereas, the victim died on 03.08.2001 at Patna. On 03.08.2001 itself, U.D. case was registered at the behest of the husband. Subsequently, the police - 2 - found it a case of suicide and did not register a formal F.I.R. It appears that subsequently, the father of the victim filed a complaint at Calcutta, which was subsequently, registered as police case on 15.10.2001 as Bidhannagar (North) P.S. Case No. 155 of 2001 in which the final form was submitted as mistake of law. It appears that the Calcutta police found that it has no jurisdiction to investigate the case. Hence, the S.D.J.M., Barrackpur discharged the accused persons vide order dated 26.03.2003 as contained in Annexure- 4. It is submitted by learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner that the police found the case of suicide, hence, the formal F.I.R. was not registered and the present complaint has been filed after three months of the occurrence when the dead body, after postmortem, was received by the complainant himself on 04.08.2001 when the complainant took it to Calcutta. It is submitted that when the accusation made by the complainant, was found not true at Calcutta then the present case was lodged. - 3 - It is further submitted that only husband and wife were present when the occurrence took place as father-in-law was not present which has not been controverted by learned Sr. counsel for the complainant. Learned Sr. counsel for the complainant submits that in Calcutta case, the anticipatory bail application of the father-in-law and mother-in-law was rejected. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the same order reflects that the husband and brother of the husband were granted anticipatory bail. Moreover, the Calcutta case was ended into discharge by order passed by learned S.D.J.M., Barrackpur, West Bengal. The further contention of the learned Sr. counsel for the complainant is that the accused persons evaded to appear since last several years on one pretext or the other and did not allow the trial to commence.. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter with regard to the quashing of - 4 - the order of cognizance as well as applications under Section 205 Cr.P.C. were pending, as a result of which, they could not appear and non-bailable warrant has been issued for the first time on 07.09.2010. The further contention of learned Sr. counsel for the complainant is that in spite of direction of the S.P., the U.D. case was not converted into regular F.I.R., the submission has no meaning since the outcome of U.D. Case has not been challenged by the complainant. Considering lodging of the complaint after three months of the occurrence, the fact that the father- in-law was not present in Patna when the occurrence took place, the suicidal note of the victim, as contained in Annexure- 3, reflects that the victim did not allege anything against the accused persons rather has taken responsibilities of committing suicide on her own, and the husband was granted anticipatory bail by Calcutta court let the petitioner namely Balaram Poddar (father-in-law), be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender - 5 - before the learned Court below within a period of 12 weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub- divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in connection with Complaint Case No. 2105C/2001, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Let the petitioner namely, Chiranjib Poddar (husband) be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Patna in connection with Complaint Case No. 2105C/01. The learned court below will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioners positively, if the petitioners fail to appear on three consecutive occasions during the trial. It is expected from the learned court below to make the commitment of the case within a period of one month, when the trial court will expedite the trial. Amrendra/- (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.) - 6 -