A.S. Naidu, J.
1. This is an application under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking cancellation of. bail granted to opposite parties 1 to 3 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Bail Application No. 594 of 2002/159 of 2002 arising out of Berhampur Mahila P.S. Case No. 62 of 2002.
2. On the basis of an FIR filed by the petitioner alleging dowry death of his daughter a criminal case under Sections 498-A/304-B/302 IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was initiated, initially against one Pradip Kumar Udgata, admittedly the son-in-law of the petitioner. Subsequently the present opposite parties 1 to 3. the father-in-law, mother-in- law and brother of the husband of the deceased respectively were arrayed as accused. The petitioner is a very high ranking responsible Government servant working in the Central Excise Department. In the FIR he specifically alleged that to satisfy the dowry demand of his son-in-law and the opposite parties I to 3 though he had paid a sum of Rs. 4.00,000.00 (four lakhs) in cash and Rs. 1,00.000.00 (one lakh) in kind towards dowry, soon after the marriage, his son-in-law Pradip Kumar Udgata coerced his daughter to bring further sum of Rs. 2.00.000.00 from the petitioner. It was also alleged that the son-in-law of the petitioner threatened his daughter giving her ultimatum that if the aforesaid sum of Rs. 2.00,000.00 was not paid to him. he would kill her. It was further alleged in the FIR by the petitioner that his daughter and son-in-law were residing separately in rented house.
3. Dowry is a vice which has not even spared the rich, cultured and educated masses. Even burban elite torture their wives for dowry. Dowry is a disease which has eaten away the morals and values on which our society thrives. Therefore the Courts have a duty to eradicate the said disease. A reading of the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act clearly reveals that giving dowry is equally an offence as that of receiving dowry. Section 3 of the Act clearly stipulates penalty for giving or taking dowry. This is a case where the informant-petitioner has baldly stated in the FIR itself that he had paid Rs. 4,00,000.00 in cash and Rs. 1,00,000.00 in kind towards dowry. But then the scope of the present petition which is one for cancellation of bail is something different. Hence. I restrict myself from delving into such aspect and give liberty to the Court below to scrutinise the FIR and other materials and proceed according to law.
4. During continuance of investigation of the case by police the present opposite parties 1 to 3 were arrayed as accused though the FIR is very much silent with regard to their involvement. They were arrested and taken to custody. They filed bail application before the S.D.J.M.. Berhampur which was rejected as the offences alleged to have been committed by them were triable by a Court of Session. Thereafter it appears they moved the learned Sessions Judge, Berhampur and ultimately the bail application was heard by the learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur. The Court below considering the fact that no specific overt act was attributed to opposite parties 1 to 3 in the FIR and the fact that the daughter and son-in-law of the informant-petitioner were staying in a rented house, separate from the in-laws of the daughter, came to a prima facie conclusion that the allegations levelled at a subsequent stage were after-thought and thus released opposite parties 1 to 3 on bail.
5. Mr. Misra, learned counsel for the informant-petitioner, forcefully argued that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge acted in a hurry and without perusing the Case Diary which could not be produced before the Court due to paucity of time released the aforesaid opposite parties on bail. According to him, such an action of the Court below was unjust and contrary to law. The allegations being grave and bride burning having become a menace of the society, the Court below should have been more careful and should have taken up the Bail Application only after production of the Case Diary. He also cited a number of decisions in support of his submission that, this Court has ample jurisdiction to cancel a bail if it is satisfied that the bail granted to the accused is unjust, illegal or the order is a perverse one. The law with regard to power of this Court to cancel the bail is undisputed and there is absolutely no quarrel with regard to the ratio of the decisions cited on behalf of the informant-petitioner.
6. Mr. Nayak, at the other hand strenuously placed before me the FIR and the other materials available on record. According to Mr. Nayak, this Court can only interfere and cancel bail if the same was granted on the basis of extraneous materials and/or the order is otherwise perverse. He submitted that the informant-petitioner is a very educated and highranking Central Government employee. The FIR has been filed by him and the same has been scribed in Oriya. A reading of the entire FIR would reveal that absolutely no overt act was attributed to any of the opposite parties 1 to 3. In the FIR it is also clearly mentioned that the son-in-law of the informant-petitioner demanded dowry and coerced the daughter of the informant-petitioner to bring more dowry. The FIR does not breathe a word with regard to any demand being made by the present opposite parties 1 to 3 or their involvement in the unnatural death of the daughter of the informant- petitioner. It is further submitted by Mr. Nayak that opposite party No. 2 is an old lady of sixty-one years, opposite party No. 1 is an old man of sixty-seven years and they were living separately from their son and daughter-in-law. Opposite party No. 3 is a young boy of twenty-four years and he was the brother-in-law of the deceased. He was also staying separately from the deceased and her husband. Even though absolutely no allegations have been levelled against the present opposite parties 1 to 3 in the FIR, Mr. Nayak submits that they were arrested only on the basis of subsequent development of the ease. The Court below after being satisfied about the facts of the case on perusing the FIR and other materials on record, rightly directed release of opposite parties 1 to 3 on bail. He also submitted that opposite parties 1 to 3 in view of their age and sex are also entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 437 CrPC.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I called upon the State Counsel to produce the Case Diary which was done. 1 have carefully perused the FIR and other materials available in the Case Diary. Admittedly the Case Diary was not produced before the Court below while opposite parties 1 to 3 were released on bail. Added to it. a petition was filed by the Public Prosecutor praying for some time being granted to him to produce the uptodate Case Diary. It also appears that the investigation was not over and was still continuing and the Case Diary is incomplete. In the present application, the informant-petitioner has alleged that after being released on bail, opposite parties 1 to 3 are misusing their liberty and are threatening the witnesses as well as the informant-petitioner. If the fact is true, definitely it reveals that opposite parties 1 to 3 have scant regard for the rule of law. But then no materials are produced to show that the informant-petitioner has filed any FIR before the local police station alleging such overt acts against opposite parties 1 to 3.
8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the investigation of the case is not over and chargesheet has not been submitted, without interfering with the matter at the present stage, I dispose of this CRLMA giving liberty to the informant-petitioner to approach the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge. Berhampur by filing a petition for cancellation of bail granted to opposite parties 1 to 3 making specific allegations with regard to the overt acts committed by the said opposite parties after their release on bail. It is also open to the informant-petitioner to bring to the notice of the Court below that the aforesaid opposite parties are not entitled to be released on bail. If such a petition is filed, the Court below will cause an inquiry and if it is satisfied that in fact the aforesaid opposite parties are misusing their liberty and/or are otherwise not entitled to be released on bail in view of the materials available on record, necessary orders shall be passed in accordance with law. Liberty is also given to the informant-petitioner to file FIR before the local police station if the aforesaid opposite parties are threatening and/or committing any overt act, thereby misusing the liberty granted to them by releasing them on bail. If such a petition is filed, the concerned police officer shall conduct necessary inquiry and take steps in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations/directions the CRLMA is disposed of.