1. The petitioner- original informant, has moved this petition for cancellation of bail, granted to respondent No.2 by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dhrangadhra vide order dated 20.12.2011 in connection with C.R. No.I- 137 of 2011, registered with Dhrangadhra Police Station, under Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It is urged by learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner was already refused bail before filing of the charge-sheet by the learned Judge and no new ground was made out and looking to the seriousness of the offence, the learned Judge was not justified in granting bail to respondent No.2.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner would argue that the marriage life of the victim with the son of respondent No.2 was of a very short span and during this short span also, she was made to commit suicide and therefore there was no case made out by respondent No.2 for getting himself released on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code'). He, therefore, submitted that this Court may exercise its power under Section 439(2) of the Code and cancel the bail granted to respondent No.2.
4. I have also heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. R.C. Kodekar for respondent No.1 State.
5. I find that the learned Judge has given good reasons for exercising the discretion in favour of respondent No.2 for releasing him on bail. The learned advocate for the petitioner could not point out that the discretion exercised by the learned Judge was erroneous or in any way, could not stand scrutiny of law. It is found from the record that respondent No.2, being father-in-law, is arraigned as an accused in the FIR, on the allegation that he along with other accused was also responsible to give mental harassment to the victim. However, the charge-sheet is filed and the learned Judge was of the opinion that respondent No.2 was facing the similar kind of allegations which were there against his daughter and since the investigation was already over on filing of the charge-sheet, no prejudice will be caused to the prosecution case and thus, the learned Judge has exercised his discretionary power in releasing respondent No.2 on bail. Since the learned Judge has not committed any error so as to call for interference of this Court under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code, I find no reason to cancel the bail granted by the learned Judge to respondent No.2.
6. Hence, the petition is rejected.
(C.L.
SONI, J.) omkar Top