2011 (9) TMI 1196 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the bail granted to respondent No.2.
2. Consideration of fresh grounds for bail.
3. Evaluation of the FSL report and its impact on the bail decision.
4. Examination of alleged threats and their influence on the bail decision.
5. Applicability of precedents in bail cancellation.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Bail Granted to Respondent No.2:
The petitioner assailed the order dated 21.04.2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge admitting respondent No.2 to bail. Initially, the bail application u/s 439 CrPC was dismissed on 07.03.2011 due to serious allegations of cruelty and threats, with the court noting that releasing the accused could tamper with evidence and hamper a fair trial.

2. Consideration of Fresh Grounds for Bail:
The second bail application was moved on 31.03.2011, citing new grounds such as no apprehension of threat to witnesses and the accused's cooperation during the investigation. The learned Additional Sessions Judge granted bail after respondent No.2 spent 45 days in custody, noting the absence of admissible evidence in the form of a suicide note and the accused's stable employment as a Section Officer.

3. Evaluation of the FSL Report and Its Impact on the Bail Decision:
The FSL report dated 09.11.2010 revealed that the handwriting in the alleged suicide note could not be attributed to the deceased. This was a significant factor in granting bail, as the earlier decision was based on the premise that the FSL report confirmed the handwriting of the deceased.

4. Examination of Alleged Threats and Their Influence on the Bail Decision:
The investigating officer's report and supplementary statements did not substantiate the alleged threats. The court noted that the brother of the deceased did not mention any threats in his statement dated 26.04.2010.

5. Applicability of Precedents in Bail Cancellation:
The petitioner relied on precedents such as Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan and Prakash Kadam Vs. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, emphasizing the need for fresh grounds to grant bail and the consideration of the gravity of the offense. The court, however, found no supervening circumstances to cancel the bail, noting the accused's cooperation and the lack of evidence of absconding or tampering with evidence.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that no ground to interfere with the impugned order was made out, and the order granting bail was well-reasoned. The petition was dismissed with no costs.