TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 971X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said Puja Agrawal met with her death on 2nd of September, 2000. The Petitioner as been charged with offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Along with the Petitioner three other ladies had also been charged. Those ladies were granted bail by an Order dated 11th September, 2000. A Petition challenging that Order has been rejected on 20th October, 2000. 6. The evidence prima facie suggests the following:- at the time of the marriage there was a demand of dowry for ₹ 5 lacs including ₹ 2 lacs in cash; that the father of the deceased has spent ₹ 7 lacs on marriage; that about a month prior to the death of the said Puja a demand of ₹ 1 lac was made; that the father of the said Puja had offered Kisan Vikas Patra worth ₹ 30,000/- to the Petitioner, which had been refused; that whenever the deceased came to the parents' home she was not wearing any ornaments; that even at the time of her death she was not wearing any ornaments not even her Mangalsutra . The deceased was eight months pregnant at the time of her death. From the scene of offence, two handkerchiefs, two small cotton balls and one bigger cotton ball wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in view of these observations the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not given reasons whilst granting bail. He submitted that in these circumstances the Additional Sessions Judge cannot be faulted. He submitted that the High Court could not cancel bail on this ground. We see no substance in this contention. Giving reasons is different from discussing merits or demerits. At the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken. What the Additional Sessions Judge had done, in the Order dated 11th September, 2000 was to discuss the merits and de-merits of the evidence. That was what was deprecated. That did not mean that whilst granting bail some reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted did not have to be indicated. 10. Mr. Lalit next submitted that the High Court has itself not given reasons but has mechanically set aside the order of the bail. We see no substance in this submission. The High Court has correctly not gone into merits or demerits of the matter. The High Court has noted that evidence prima-facie indicated demand of dowry. The High Court has bri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kept in mind that the concept of setting aside the unjustified illegal or perverse order is totally different from the concept of cancelling the bail on the ground that accused has misconducted himself or because of some new facts requiring such cancellation. This position is made clear by this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.).: 1978CriLJ129 : 1978CriLJ129 In that case the Court observed as under:- If, however, a Court of Session had admitted an accused person to bail, the State has two options. It may move the Sessions Judge if certain new circumstances have arisen which were not earlier known to the State and necessarily, therefore, to that Court. The State may as well approach the High Court being the superior Court under S. 439(2) to commit the accused to custody. When however, the State is aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail and there are no new circumstances that have cropped up except those already existed, it is futile for the State to move the Sessions Judge again and it is competent in law to move the High Court for cancellation of the bail. This position follows from the subordinate position of the Court of Session ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rathinam vs. State by DSP, District Crime Branch, Madurai District, Madurai and anr. [2000]1SCR718 : [2000]1SCR718 , needs to be seen. In this case Bail had been granted to certain persons. A group of practising advocates presented petitions before Chief Justice of the High Court seeking initiation of suo motu proceedings for cancellation of bail. The Chief Justice placed the petitions before a Division Bench. The Division Bench refused to exercise the suo motu powers on the ground that the petition submitted by the advocates was not maintainable. This Court held that the frame of sub-section (2) of Section 439 indicates that it is a power conferred on the Courts mentioned therein. It was held that there was nothing to indicate that the said power can be exercised only if the State or investigating agency or a Public Prosecutor moves by a petition. It was held that the power so vested in the High Court can be invoked either by the State or by any aggrieved party. It was held that the said power could also be exercised suo motu by the High Court. It was held that, therefore, any member of the public, whether he belongs to any particular profession or otherwise could move the High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
