( 1 ) BOTH these petitions relate to the same matter praying for cancellation of bail granted to the accused - non-applicants. Mr. Cr. C. 1442/90-a letter petition which Bansilal the complainant, has preferred before this Court while M. Cr. C. 1314/90 has been preferred through his counsel. Both these petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) SHRI Jaisingh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. L. Garg with Shri S. S. Garg, learned counsels for the accused-respondents, are heard.

( 3 ) SHORT facts giving rise to these petitions may now be noted: Sangita, the daughter of the complainant-petitioner Bansilal, was married to Rajmal and Rajendra sb Prabhulal - non-applicant No. 2. This marriage was solemnised on 5th June, 90 at Bhasoda Mandi, District Mandsaur, Just within five days of the marriage, it is alleged that Sangita was so much tortured for dowry, that the on 10-6-1990, committed suicide by setting fire to herself. Her father, however, suspected that she was infact burnt to death. Sangita in her dying declaration had also made such a statement. It is a question relating to merits, which I do not, at this stage propose to go into. The grievance of the petitioner is about the manner in which the accused were ordered to be enlarged on bail by. Additional Sessions Judge and even by the Magistrate. ( 4 ) ACCUSED-NON-APPLICANT No. 3 and 4, the mother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of deceased Sangita were granted anticipatory bail u/s. 438 Cr. P. C. in face of charges u/s. 498-A, 306 and 304 (b) IPC levelled against them vide order dtd. 6-7-90 passed by the Addi. Sessions Judge, Garoth (Camp: Bhanpura ).

( 5 ) AS can be gathered from the impugned order, one of the objections raised before the A. S. J. at the time of hearing of above bail petition, was that the police was in league with the accused, and it would be highly unjust and improper to grant them anticipatory bail u/s. 438 Cr. P. C. is respect of such anti-social crime, the bride burning no matter that the accused happened to be ladies. It was also specifically brought to the notice of the learned Judge that the police was deliberately avoiding to procure a dying declaration made by Sangita before a Judicial Magistrate of Bhavani Mandi (Raj.) clearly implicating the applicants. The learned Judge however without even adverting to these objections was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the mother-in-law and sister-in-law, a practice denounced by the Supreme Court in Samunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan which was cited before the learned Judge who perfunctorily dealt with it.

( 6 ) THE accused-non-applicant Rajmal Rajendra was admitted to bail u/s. 439 Cr. P. C. by order dtd. 10-7-1990. During the course of hearing of this bail petition, the learned Judge was apprised of the fact (evident from the impugned order), that none of the family members of the accused- side was present after the post-mortem examination to take charge of the body of Sangita, accused non-applicant Rajendra, her husband himself was reported to be missing right from the incident. This fact is certainly a relevant consideration for grant or refusal of bail but the learned Judge, as it was felt necessary otherwise very elaborate order, does not even advert to this aspect of the matter and very conveniently omits to consider the same. It is one thing to reject a particular point after consideration, but to omit to consider the same is altogether a different thing.

( 7 ) THE record of the Courts below was, therefore, sent for.

( 8 ) NOW coming to the case of accused-non-applicant Prabhulal. Accused Prabhulal, the father-in-law of deceased Sangita, was arrested and produced before the Magistrate on 25-7-90 for offences punishable u/s. 304 (I), 498 (A), 306 IPC with Section. 4 (A) of the Dowry Prevention Act registered at P. S. Bhanpura as Crime No. 128/90, was admitted to bail by the J. M. F. C. , Garoth by his order dtd. 25-7-90. H