Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Deepak Kumar Goyal vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 May, 1995

Equivalent citations: I(1996)DMC212, 1996(1)WLC305, 1995(1)WLN690

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Saxena, J.

1. Petitioner Deepak Kumar Goyal aggrieved by the order dated 14.4.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar cancelling his bail under
Section 439(2)
Cr.P.C and directing him to surrender himself before the learned A.C.J.M. on 18.4.1995 and further directing the said Magistrate to send him to the judicial custody, has preferred this petition under
Section 482
Cr.P.C. bearing S.B. Cr. Misc. Application No. 202/95 and anticipatory bail application Under
Section 438
Cr.P.C. bearing S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 699/95.

2. Since both these petitions emanate from the impugned order, those are being disposed off by a common order.

3. Now briefly the skeletal facts. Deceased Saroj Bala was married on 7.5.1994 to the petitioner and she died on the night intervening 1st and 2nd December, 1995 at petitioner's house in abnormal circumstances. Initially, an enquiry Under
Section 176
Cr.P.C. was conducted by the City Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar. The Medical Board consisting of three doctors conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased and found black points at nostrils and upper lip and one abrasion 1-1/5" x 1/4" x 1/5" on the right side of mandible. On dissection, the Board found that her membranes, brain and spinal cord, pleurae, larynx and tracheae, both the lungs, liver, spleen & kidneys were congested while other visceras were healthy. There was semi-digested material alongwith foul smell and gases were present in the stomach. The contents of the stomach and visceras of lungs, liver, brain, kidney and spleen of the deceased were sealed in two jars and those were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur for chemical examination. The Medical Board reserved . its opinion regarding the cause of death till the receipt of the chemical examination report of the visceras and histopathological report of heart. On the report of deceased's father Ramniwas, a case was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Ganganagar for the offences Under
Sections 498A
and
304B
I.P.C. against the petitioner, his parents and sister. It was alleged that the petitioner and other co-accused persons used to maltreat and harass the deceased and make repeated demands for giving a scooter. Initially, from the investigation, offence Under
Section 498A
I.P.C. only was made out against the petitioner and the then learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 21.12.1994 granted bail to the petitioner Under
Section 439
Cr.P.C. for the offence Under
Section 498A
I.P.C. with the specific stipulation that if from the further investigation of the case, it was found that the offence Under
Section 304B
I.P.C. was made out, then the I.O. shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner for the said offence by filing an application before the Court. The Asstt. Director, State F.S.L.by his report dated 31.1.1995 opined that the contents of the stomach, pieces of small intestines, liver, spleen, kidney, lungs and brain of the deceased gave positive tests for the presence of organophosphorous insecticide (moncrotophos). The Pathologist in his report dated 15.2.1995 opined that for the heart, coronories and aorta, no specific pathology was seen. The Medical Board after perusing those reports opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to the consumption of monocrotophos. Thus, the death of Smt. Saroj was not natural but had occurred in abnormal circumstances within a few months of her marriage with the petitioner. Accordingly, the offence Under
Section 304B
I.P.C. was added against the petitioner. Thereafter, an application Under
Section 439(2)
Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the bail of the petitioner was filed by the State, which was allowed and the petitioner's bail was cancelled and he was directed to surender before the A.C.J.M. The petitioner instead of surrendering before the learned Magistrate has also filed his anticipatory bail petition under
Section 438
Cr.P.C. in this Court.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor at length and carefully perused the case diary and the relevant record.

5. The offences Under
Sections 498A
and
304B
I.P.C. are distinct and separate offences. The learned Sessions Judge while granting bail to the petitioner vide order dated 21.12.1994 had specifically laid down a condition that in case, from further investigation, offence Under
Section 304B
I.P.C. appeared to have been made out against the petitioner then the I.O. shall be at liberty to arrest him for that offence after filing an application in the Court till 21.12.1994. At that stage the exact cause of death of the deceased was not known and the Medical Board had kept its opinion reserved regarding the cause of death, but later on the chemical examination of the various visceras as per F.S.L. report gave positive test for the presence of monocrotophos. Thus, prima facie the ingredients of the offence under
Section 304B
I.P.C. (dowry death) appear to have been made out against the petitioner. It is true that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancellation of the bail. The bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.

6. Mr. G.R. Goyal has placed reliance on the case of
Dolat Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana
, 1995, Cr.L.R. (SC) 81. It was a case of dowry death. Anticipatory bail was granted for the offence Under
Section 304B
I.P.C. by the Sessions Judge, which was cancelled by the High Court. It was held that if once the bail has been granted, it cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner and can only be cancelled on specific grounds and supervening circumstances warranting the cancellation of the bail. It was further held that generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner and the satisfaction of the Court, on the basis of the material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding.

7. I respectfully agree with this dictum of law but the facts of
Dolat Ram
's case (supra) are clearly distinguishable. In the case of hand, petitioner was bailed out for the offence Under
Section 498A
I.P.C. only and not for the offence Under
Section 304B
I.P.C, which is a distinct and separate offence and it was also specifically mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge that in case offence Under
Section 304B
I.P.C, was made out against the petitioner, the Investigating Officer will be at liberty to arrest him by filing an application before that Court.

8.
In
Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan
, 1985 Cr.L.R. (SC) 265, anticipatory bail was granted to the accused for the offence Under
Section 307
I.P.C. but the victim succumbed to his injuries and subsequently offence Under
Section 302
I.P.C. was added. No attempt to arrest the accused was made. Again, the anticipatory bail was granted Under
Section 302
I.P.C. by the Court. It was held by the Apex Court that some very compelling circumstances must be made out for granting bail to a person accused of committing murder and that too when the investigation is in progress and that faith of public in administration of justice was likely to be considerably shaken if the order granting pre-arrest bail to the accused was not cancelled. In my considered opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality in cancelling the bail of the petitioner and directing him to surrender before the A.C.J.M. for sending him to judicial custody. Hence, the impugned order does not amount to abuse of the process of the Court and does not warrant any interference.

9. Accordingly, the petition filed under
Section 482
Cr.P.C. stands dismissed. 10.1 also do not find valid and sufficient grounds to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner for the offence Under
Section 304B
I.P.C. and, as such, his anticipatory bail petition is hereby dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Mr. Ganganagar for compliance.