G.M. LODHA, V.J.—Dowery death or accidental one, is the debate.

2. The fumes, fire and flames produced from the charred flesh of Hansa Rani, Tells tall tale of murder by Ashok, motivated due to failure of her parents to satisfy the ever increasing greed and lust of (money) dowery, is the pivot of prosecution story. Accidental "burning alive" is the defence.

3. The twin letters unfolding, unvoiling and unearthing the sensational, startling tragic tale of woe and tears of Hansas matrimonial tragedy, makes too pathetic, hair raising, perved shooking and society rocking reading. The defence story of their fabrication, true or false, yet to be adjudicated.

4. Deceased wife a post graduate clerk of Sales Tax Department, and Accused husband, a Gold medalist Lecturer of Engineering College, prima facie shows that education hardly detracts crime of dowery deaths, if the prosecution story is true.

5. "Bail before Jail" is the prayer of defence. Gallows to dowery murderers the contra demand of prosecution.

6. Detached from the above heat generated on the ashes of Hansa and attached to "Justice according to Law" on objective considerations of facts, rather than flights and fiction, is the task of court.

7. And now the traditional narration of case.

8. This is a second bail application by one Ashok Dhariwal, who is required to face investigation in a case, which has been registered under section 302 I.P.C. against him for causing murder of none-else but his own wife one Hansa Rani and that too on the allegation that the dowery having not been paid by the parents of the girl, the wife Hansa Rani was burnt alive.

9. On 6th May, 1982, the application under section 438 was dismissed after the adjournment was refused on account of the earlier adjournment history of the case.

10. Today an application has been moved by Mr. Choudhary learned counsel for the petitioner mentioning that the petitioner does not want to press this application under section 438 Cr.P.C. on merits, and the same may be dismissed.

11. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has remained absconding since 9-6-1981 when the case was registered against him. Since 9th March, 1982 standing warrant for his arrest has been issued. It was pointed out that in case the application is not decided on merits, the accused, who has earlier also got the came dismissed as not pressed on 6-5-82 would file a third or fourth bail application and if necessary by changing of the Counsel and before different judges and that would be misuse and abuse of process of court. In support of this it was pointed out that whereas the earlier bail application was dismissed on 6.5.82, the present bail application was filed immediately thereafter on 10th May, 1982 without there being any change of circumstances or any fresh developments.

12. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the case is of very heinous nature and the fact that the accused is not surrendering and avoiding arrest, aggravates its seriousness.

13. The above allegations were controverted by Mr. Choudhary, who submitted that the Police interrogated the accused number of times but did not arrest him presumably because the police was in two minds and it is only recently that effort is being made to arrest him.

14. The investigation file was also placed before me by the learned Public Prosecutor in support of his contention.

15. Undoubtedly, the filing of two successive bail applications under S. 438 one after the other shows that the accused wants to take a chance after dismissal of the first.

16. It is also to be noted that in criminal matters, a party cannot be given an absolute right of withdrawal or not pressing the matter after filing the same, because it has been enjoined upon the court to administer justice more particularly when it concerns the liberty of a person. Liberty is an unalienable right.

17. The liberty of a person is not a matter which can either be withdrawn by a citizen or which can be encroached upon or removed b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document