Gajanand Agarwal vs State Of Orissa & Ors

It is unnecessary to elaborately state the factual position as stated by the appellant.

Bimal was married to the daughter of the appellant i.e. Manisha (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'). The marriage between the deceased and the said accused took place on 9.5.2005. Within five months of marriage, the deceased was found dead on 1.10.2005. The appellant lodged FIR at the Jharsuguda police station and on the basis case was registered and investigation was undertaken. The offences indicated were under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, (in short 'the Act') Respondent no.2-Bimal was arrested on 3.10.2005. Rest of the accused persons were found to be absconding and police having failed to arrest them in spite of issuance of non- bailable warrants of arrest made an application in terms of Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') was filed. On 16.12.2005 father-in-law of the deceased Kailash Khetan and mother-in-law Kanta Khetan filed application in terms of Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the High Court which was rejected. Process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. was issued by the learned ADJM on 19.12.2005. On 16.1.2006 respondent no.2 Bimal filed application for bail which was rejected on the ground that investigation was still in progress. Liberty was granted to the accused to move the Sessions Judge for bail after completion of investigation and submission of final form. On 24.1.2006 application in terms of Section 438 was filed by Sunil Kumar (respondent no.2 in the connected appeals) and Sujata Khetan. The same were rejected by order dated 24.1.2006. An application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was filed by Kailash and Kanta. The same was again rejected by the High Court. On 27.1.2006 the Trial Court issued orders in terms of Section 83 Cr.P.C. to attach the moveable properties of the accused. On 30.1.2006 the investigating officer submitted the charge-sheet/final report before the learned SDJM indicating that a prima facie case has been made against the respondent No.2-Bimal Kumar Kailashnath (father-in-law), Kanta Devi (mother-in-law), Sunil (brother-in-law) the respondent no.2 in the connected appeal under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 406 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. The prosecution made a further prayer to permit investigation in terms of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. since some of the accused persons were still absconding and were not arrested. After surrendering, Kanta Khetan and Sujata Devi filed application for bail. The same was rejected by learned SDJM. Learned Sessions Judge also rejected the bail application. The applications filed by Kailashnath and Sunil were also subsequently rejected. On 13.2.2006, respondent no.2 Bimal filed fresh bail application before the Sessions Court, which was rejected. The learned Additional Sessions Judge took note of factual position which according to him were relevant for the purpose of rejecting the bail application. It was noted that strong case under Section 302/304B IPC was made out. Sujata Devi filed bail petition before the High Court after rejection of bail application by the Sessions Judge. The High Court by order dated 6.3.2006 granted bail to her.

Interestingly, it was noted that the order was not to be treated as a precedent so far as other accused persons are concerned. The correctness of such a direction shall be dealt with later. It is to be noted that on 22.3.2006 Kanta Devi moved the High Court for bail. The High Court granted the bail imposing condition similar to those which were stipulated in case of Sujata Devi. Accused Sunil Kumar moved the High Court for regular bail. By order dated 7.4.2006 the prayer was rejected but liberty was granted to renew his prayer for bail after the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. On 21.4.2006 the High Court granted bail to Kailashnath on the ground that he was aged and was sick. Here again, the High Court passed an order to the effect that same was not to be treated as a precedent so far as other accused persons are concerned. On 3.5.2006 accused Sunil Kumar moved the Sessions Court for bail on the ground that his father requires further treatment at Apollo Hospital and there was no male member to accompany him. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the prayer of bail by order dated 3.5.2006 suspecting genuineness of the documents filed. It was noted that report was dated 30.6.2006 i.e. date put on the advisory report, while the application was made earlier. Because of this suspicious document, the application for bail was rejected.

Nothing more is needed at this stage to set aside the impugned order of the High Court.

The appeals are accordingly allowed.