IMPORTANT POINT
Bail-Cancellation of-Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of the bail already granted.

Ranjit Singh, J.

1. This order will dispose of CRM Nos. 7448-M of 2005, 24616-M of 2005 and 41927-M of 2005.

2. These petitions have been filed seeking cancellation of bail granted to respective respondents Nanak Chand, Jeevni Devi and Pawan Gupta. FIR No. 271 under Sections 304-B/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Taoru, District Gurgaon on 3.12.2004 at the instance of Phool Chand petitioner. He is father of an unfortunate girl named Sushma, who was married to Pawan Kumar of village Taoru on 2.12.1999. Stating that the dowry according to the capacity of the complainant was given but still the respondents family was not satisfied and raised demands, which lead his daughter to commit suicide. Giving details of dowry articles demanded by the respondents from time to time, the complainant has disclosed that on 2.12.2004, which was the marriage anniversary of his daughter, he received a telephonic message from his son-in-law, Pawan Kumar, that balance of Rs. 2 lacs be sent. Next morning, the complainant allegedly received a telephone call from his daughter that her husband wanted some writing under pressure and that complainant should send the balance amount. At about 10 p.m. complainant received a message from his son-in-law that his daughter was in hospital. Reaching Taoru Government Hospital, complainant found Sushma in a burnt condition from where she was referred to Gurgaon. As per the complainant, he had gone to the house of the respondents and had noticed certain tell tale marks about the incident of burning of his daughter and accordingly the present FIR was lodged by him. Since Sushma had died an unnatural death within a period of seven years of her marriage, the case under Section 304-B IPC was registered. However, on protest made by the complainant, offence under Section 302 IPC was also added. It is disclosed in the petition that Nanak Chand and Pawan Kumar were arrested on 22.12.2004 whereas Jeevni Devi was arrested on 2.1.2005. Grievance is that remaining accused were not arrested because of the influence of the accused persons. It is also disclosed that even after arrest, Nanak Chand remained admitted in the hospital till he was released on bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon on 15.1.2005, which is impugned in this petition. Case set up is that the investigation was at very initial stage when the Additional Sessions Judge granted the concession of bail unmindful of the serious allegations that were made in the FIR. When this bail was allowed, four accused persons were yet to be arrested. Making reference to all these facts, it has been urged that this would reveal an arbitrary exercise of discretion, which cannot be termed as judicious. Allegations of misuse of concession of bail by Nanak Chand and his son Bharat Bhushan alias Bunty have also been made by disclosing that they had openly threatened the petitioner and are being told to stop pursuing the case. Reference has also been made to some news items appearing in Times of India dated 18.12.2004.

3. Subsequently, Jeevni Devi and Pawan Kumar were also granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon on 10.2.2005 and 8.6.2005 respectively, which was challenged on identical grounds as contained in the above noted criminal petitions. Notice in these petitions were also issued. Replies have been filed on behalf of respondents. They have controverted the insinuatory allegations made in the petitions and have justified the order of Additional Sessions Judge directing the release of respective respondents on bail.

4. Mr. Baldev Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently submitted that the present case is clear example of wrongful and illegal use of discretion in granting bail to the respondents. He has further made allegation of misuse of concession of bail by the respondents and has accordingly submitted that bail granted to the respondents needed to be cancelled. The counsel would mainly emphasize that the order p