ORDER :

Heard and perused the record.

This order shall govern the disposal of the applicant's application filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C for cancellation of bail.

2. The present application has been filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by Eighth Additional Sessions & Special Judge (OAW), Indore in ST No.436/2023 in connection with FIR Number/Crime No.272/2023 of Police Station Rajendra Nagar, District Indore for the offence punishable under section 304-B of IPC, 1860 and Section 3&4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, whereby respondent No.1 has been granted bail.

3. In brief, the contentions of the application are that the respondent no.1 is the husband of the deceased, and due to his cruelty and harassment the deceased committed suicide. Hence, the police has registered the FIR against the respondent and co-accused. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the learned trial Court by its impugned order, ignoring the legal pronouncements and other facts & circumstances of the case, granted bail to respondent no.1 on the basis of parity with co-accused Jawahar S/o Goraldas Chandawni, whereas the bail of co-accused Jawahar was granted on the very specific ground that there are only general and omnibus allegations against him. It is also submitted that the main allegations are against respondent no.1, the husband of the deceased, and this Court has also assumed him as the main accused.

4. Counsel further contended that in the order dated 24.0.2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No.30234/2023, the primary allegations are directly against respondent no.1, hence there is no ground of parity. It is also submitted that after being released from the jail the respondent would try to influence the trial by threatening the present applicant and would misuse his liberty. In view of the aforesaid, it is a fit case for cancellation of bail, therefore, counsel requested to set aside the bail order in the interest of justice.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 opposing the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bail order cannot be cancelled only on superficial and mechanical reasons and there should be some specific grounds to cancel the bail application. Respondent No.2 has neither misused the liberty nor tried to influence the prosecution witnesses. He has been granted bail by the trial Court not only on the basis of parity but also on other grounds. Therefore, counsel prayed for rejection of the present application.

6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid pleadings and rival contentions the question for determination is as to whether order passed by the learned trial Court regarding grant of bail is liable to be cancelled.

7. Before dwelling upon the contentions, here it is pertinent to mention that after filing of this application, this Court has called for explanations from the learned Sessions Judge with regard to parity in granting bail. In reply, learned Sessions Judge, explaining her bail order, submitted that in this case after completing investigation, chargesheet was filed, the respondent no.1 has already completed sufficient period in custody and he was not required for any other proceedings after filing of charge sheet, therefore in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, bail has been granted in favour of respondent no.1 and as such the bail has not been granted on account of parity.

8 . In this regard learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon some of the verdicts of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He has relied upon the case of Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. reported as (2022) 8 SCC 559 wherein it has been held that the issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitised judicial process. Section 439 Cr.P.C is the guiding principle for adjudicating a regu