Suresh Kait, J.

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 21.04.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the respondent No. 2/accused has been admitted on bail.

2. Before adverting to the petition, let briefly recapitulate the facts.

3. A case under Section 498A/304B Indian Penal Code was registered against respondent No. 2 and his relatives vide FIR No. 324/2009 dated 31.12.2009 at police station Janakpuri, New Delhi.

4. Initially, respondent No. 2 moved an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court which was rejected vide order dated 20.01.2010.

5. Being aggrieved, he approached this Court and vide order dated 10.03.2010, the petition of respondent No. 2 was rejected.

6. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 moved Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and vide order dated 05.04.2010, respondent No. 2 was granted interim relief.

7. Vide order dated 07.01.2011, during the pendency of the said SLP of respondent No. 2, Hon'ble Supreme Court wanted to see the FSL report, but the same was not available on the record. However, during the pendency of the SLP the investigating agency filed the charge-sheet in the present case on 13.01.2011. Further, on 28.01.2011, investigating agency filed the supplementary charge-sheet.

8. After perusing the FSL report; vide order dated 11.02.2011, the Apex Court dismissed the SLP. After which, respondent No. 2 surrendered before the Court and moved a bail application under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 07.03.2011.

9. After committal of the case, the investigating officer Inspector Prabhu Dayal, visited the house of the petitioner and investigated the incident of threat given by Surat Singh s/o Sugad Ram, brother of the accused/respondent No. 2 to the son of the petitioner against which, the complaint was lodged on 09.01.2010 by the son of the petitioner.

10. Respondent No. 2 moved another bail application before the learned Trial Court. After hearing both the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge had dismissed the same vide order dated 07.03.2011.

11. The main pleas raised by learned counsel for petitioner is that same learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the bail application under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure of the respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 07.03.2011, whereas, by the impugned order dated 21.04.2011, respondent No. 2 was admitted to bail.

12. In the order dated 07.03.2011, learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the first bail application had observed as under:-

"Admittedly, deceased Meenu had died within eight months of her marriage with the Applicant. As discussed above, there is sufficient allegation of cruelty and using abusive language by the Applicant to the deceased and also physical beatings and torture by the accused/Applicant to the deceased as result, she has committed suicide. There is no doubt that the allegation against the accused/Applicant are serious and the gravity of the offence is not in dispute. The material as discussed above shows that the accused/Applicant has allegedly extended threats to the brother of the deceased after his wife committed suicide and had died in unnatural circumstances due to the alleged mental and physical torture committed by the accused/Applicant. In these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that in case the accused/Applicant is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may hamper the fair trial in this case. Therefore, seeing the gravity of the offence and in totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground for granting bail to the accused/Applicant. The application is accordingly, dismissed. Copy of this order be sent along with the Trial Court record. Accused/Applicant be produced before Ld.ACMM (West) on 08.03.2011 at 10.00am. Copy of the order be given dasti."

13. Thereafter,