JUDGMENT

A. S. NAIDU, J. — This is an application under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking cancellation of bail granted to opposite parties 1 to 3 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Bail Application No. 594 of 2002/159 of 2002 arising out of Berhampur Mahila P.S. Case No. 62 of 2002.

2. On the basis of an FIR filed by the petitioner alleging dowry death of his daughter a criminal case under Sections 498-A/304-B/302 IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was initiated, initially against one Pradip Kumar Udgata, admit¬tedly the son-in-law of the petitioner. Subsequently the present opposite parties 1 to 3, the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother of the husband of the deceased respectively were arrayed as accused. The petitioner is a very high ranking responsible Government servant working in the Central Excise Department. In the FIR he specifically alleged that to satisfy the dowry demand of his son-in-law and the opposite parties 1 to 3 though he had paid a sum of Rs. 4,00,000.00 (four lakhs) in cash and Rs. 1,00,000.00 (one lakh) in kind towards dowry, soon after the marriage, his son-in-law Pradip Kumar Udgata coerced his daughter to bring further sum of Rs. 2,00,000.00 from the petitioner. It was also alleged that the son-in-law of the petitioner threatened his daughter giving her ultimatum that if the aforesaid sum of Rs. 2,00,000.00 was not paid to him, he would kill her. It was further alleged in the FIR by the petitioner that his daughter and son-in-law were residing separately in rented house.

3. Dowry is a vice which has not even spared the rich, cultured and educated masses. Even burban elite torture their wives for dowry. Dowry is a disease which has eaten away the morals and values on which our society thrives. Therefore the Courts have a duty to eradicate the said disease. A reading of the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act clearly reveals that giving dowry is equally an offence as that of receiving dowry. Section 3 of the Act clearly stipulates penalty for giving or taking dowry. This is a case where the informant-petitioner has baldly stated in the FIR itself that he had paid Rs. 4,00,000.00 in cash and Rs. 1,00,000.00 in kind towards dowry. But then, the scope of the present petition which is one for cancellation of bail is something different. Hence, I restrict myself from delv¬ing into such aspect and give liberty to the Court below to scrutinise the FIR and other materials and proceed according to law.

4. During continuance of investigation of the case by police, the present opposite parties 1 to 3 were arrayed as accused though the FIR is very much silent with regard to their involvement. They were arrested and taken to custody. They filed bail application before the S.D.J.M., Berhampur which was reject¬ed as the offences alleged to have been committed by them were triable by a Court of Session. Thereafter it appears they moved the learned Sessions Judge, Berhampur and ultimately the bail application was heard by the learned Second Addl.Sessions Judge, Berhampur. The Court below considering the fact that no specific overt act was attributed to opposite parties 1 to 3 in the FIR and the fact that the daughter and son-in-law of the informant-petitioner were staying in a rented house, separate from the in-laws of the daughter, came to a prima facie conclusion that the allegations levelled at a subsequent stage were after-thought and thus released opposite parties 1 to 3 on bail.

5. Mr. Misra, learned counsel for the informant-petition¬er, forcefully argued that the learned Addl.Sessions Judge acted in a hurry and without perusing the Case Diary which could not be produced before the Court due to paucity of time, released the aforesaid opposite parties on bail. According to him, such an action of the Court below was unjust and contrary to law. The allegations being grave and bride burning having become a menace of the s