Amareshwar Sahay, J.

1. By the Court.-The Vigilance Cell of this Court received a letter written by Smt. Tuku Banerjee, wherein it was prayed to probe as to how her accused- husband was granted bail by the S.D.J.M. Dhanbad. She stated that she had lodged a complaint before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad against her husband Sandeep Banerjee, father-in-law Magaram Banerjee and Mother-in-law Malati Banerjee for commission of the offence under Sections 498-A IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the said case cognizance has also been taken under the aforesaid sections of the Indian Penal Code. After the cognizance the accused Sandeep Banerjee appeared and he was released on bail by the SDJM.

2. Pursuant to the said letter, a report was called for from the District Judge, Dhanbad by the Vigilance Cell. After perusal of the report of the District Judge, the matter was referred to the judicial side to determine whether the bail granted to the accused Sandeep Banerjee (husband of the complainant) be cancelled or not. Accordingly, the present criminal writ was registered.

3. By order dated 9/11/2004 the complainant-wife as well as the accused- husband were noticed. Both the parties appeared through their respective counsels and filed their respective affidavits.

4. From the statements made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant Smt. Tuku Banerjee, it appears that she has alleged that she was married to the accused Sandeep Banerjee and because of the demand of dowry she was tortured and physically assaulted by her husband and the in-laws due to which she received several injuries and then ultimately, she left her matrimonial home on 09/03/2003. It was further alleged that her father had to pay an amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- (Rupees one lakh ninety thousand only) by Bank Draft as dowry to her in-laws. The husband thereafter, filed Matrimonial Suit No. 23/03 on 10/03/2003 at Asansol with prayer to dissolve the marriage between the parties and for a decree for divorce. Accordingly, it was stated that Sandeep Banerjee the husband did not deserve to be released on bail and, therefore, the bail granted by the SDJM be cancelled.

5. Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel appearing for the complainant Smt. Tuku Banerjee relied on the following decisions in support of the case of the complainant:-

(1) Rambilash and Anr. v. Shekhar and Ors. reported In (2001) 6 SCC 338.

(2) Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in (2004) 3 Crimes 225 (SC).

(3) Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. reported in (2002) 3 SCC 598.

6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the accused-husband Sandeep Banerjee, it has been stated that the present criminal writ initiated suo moto by the High Court is not maintainable and if the complainant-wife was aggrieved by the order of the SDJM granting bail to the accused husband, she could have availed the remedy under Section 437(5) of the Cr PC for cancellation of bail. It has further been stated that the invocation of Article 227 of the Constitution of India was not justified in the present case because the trial Court by order dated 15/6/2004 granted bail to the husband Sandeep Banerjee in exercise of the power conferred under the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, and that also after considering the relevant facts, as well as the judgment of the High Court and the Supreme Court of India. It has been sub-mitted by Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-husband Sandeep Banerjee after relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of Dolat Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana reported in 1995 SCC (Cri) 237, Subhendu Mishra v. Subrat Kumar Mishra and Anr. reported in 1999 Cr LJ 4063 (SC), Biman Chatterjee v. Sanchita Chaterjee and Anr. reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 814 and in the case of Maninder Kaur and Ors. v. Teja Singh reported in 2001 (1) East Cr C 42 (SC) that no case for cancellation of bail granted to the accused husband is made out.

7.