The main legal point established in the judgment is that the gravity of the crime, character of evidence, and the position of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses are crucial factors to be considered in granting bail.

ORDER :

1. Rule. Learned APP Ms. M.H. Bhatt waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and learned advocate Mr. Majmudar waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 2.

2. This is an application filed by the original informant seeking cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By this application, the original informant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the learned 8th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2378 of 2021. The respondent No. 2 herein original accused was enlarged on regular bail in respect of complainant bearing FIR No. 11191045210802 of 2021 registered with Sola High Court Police Station, Ahmedabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306, 294(B) read with Section 114 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The gist of the complaint is:

3.1 The aforesaid complaint came to be lodged by the present applicant namely Dhirubhai Kasturbhai Dantani, who is the father of deceased Bhanuben, who was married to present respondent No. 2. The marriage was solemnized in May, 2018. It is contended that after marriage, the deceased was staying with respondent No. 2 in joint family along with accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased. Because of the ill-treatment given by the aforesaid accused, the deceased had joined the parents’ house since last one year. It is further alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by giving mental harassment and was physically assaulted on account of not fulfilling the demand of dowry. It is further contended that the attempts were made through family friends and relatives and the deceased was sent to her matrimonial home.

3.2 It is further contended that in the month of October, 2019, during Diwali festival, the deceased had expressed her wish to stay back at her parent’s house which resulted into altercation between them and the respondent No. 2 had gone away leaving the deceased at parent house. Again attempts were made and the accused No. 2 father-in-law of deceased had taken the deceased back to the matrimonial home.

3.3 It is further alleged that in the month of August, 2020, the accused persons have visited the house of the complainant and had raised issues that no child is borne out of the wedlock, neither any bike or ornaments have been given during marriage. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 2 had physically and mentally caused the harassment to the deceased and after assaulting her, the deceased was drawn out from her matrimonial home since then the deceased had continued to reside at her parental home.

3.4 It is contended that on 20.05.2021 at around 3:30 hrs. in the afternoon, the respondent No. 2 Arvindbhai and accused No. 2 Kishorbhai had called on the Mobile of the complainant. It is alleged that the respondent No. 2 had inquired from the deceased as to whether she is ready to give divorce since the deceased expressed her unwillingness, the respondent No. 2 threatened her by stating that his marriage is fixed in the near date and he would share the invitation card and insisted for divorce. It is further alleged that within span of one hour, second call was received from respondent No. 2 whereby he informed to the complainant that his marriage is fixed on 10th June and insisted for divorce from his daughter. He also threatened the complainant by saying that his daughter may be married elsewhere as he is not ready to continue with this marriage. By using abusive words, he discontinued the phone. It is further alleged that since Mobile was on speaker, the deceased had heard their conversation. The deceased had called the respondent No. 2, which resulted into further altercation between them. It is alleged that the respondent No. 2 had used disrespectful words against the deceased and had disconnected the phone. It is further alleg