The revision filed against the aforesaid order has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by passing a telegraphic order to the effect having companysidered the case before me I am of the opinion numberground has been made for cancellation of bail.
As he did number appear on that date in that companyrt, number bailable warrants were issued against him for 22nd August, 2000.
After registration of the case on 3.6.1999, the investigating officer recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Not satisfied with the order of the Magistrate and that of the High Court, the father of the deceased has approached this Court in this appeal by special leave.
Notice to the appellant was issued on 17th August, 2000 but in the meantime the respondent moved an application under Section 438 of the Code for anticipatory bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi for which numberorder was passed and direction was issued to the accused to first appear before the Magistrate on 22nd August, 2000 and pray for bail in accordance with law.
As numbercase was registered against the accused, the appellant approached higher authorities including the Prime Minister of India, Home Minister of India and Commissioner of Police, Delhi, with the result that Deputy Commissioner of Police South District directed the registration of case under Sections 306 and 498A IPC.
The accused respondent moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter referred to as the Code .
In the meanwhile the respondent filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the Code in the High Court without impleading the appellant as a party.
On 1.7.2000 a charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 302, 406 and 498A IPC by the investigating agency and he was directed to appear before the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi on 8.8.2000.
Applications for cancellation of the anticipatory bail were dismissed.
In his petition filed in the High Court, the accused suppressed the fact that a charge sheet under Section 302 has been filed against him.
DL 9SC 0680 where he poured kerosene oil and burnt her alive in the presence of her parents.
Huge amounts are stated to have been paid by the appellant to the accused on various occasions.
The High Court kept the order of the Magistrate dated 8.8.2000 in abeyance till 22nd August, 2000.
As the bail application was number seriously opposed by the Investigating Agency, the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi granted interim bail on 16.6.1999.
The deceased and the respondent No.2 were married on 24.11.1984.
She is alleged to have been subjected to ill treatment on account of demand for dowry.
On 18.3.1999 the respondent No.2 is alleged to have brought the deceased to her parental house on Scooter No.
However, while dismissing such an application on 13.9.1999, the Additional Sessions Judge observed that if on facts a case under Section 302 is made out against the accused, the State shall be at liberty to arrest him.
LITTTTTTTJ Respondent NO.2, who is alleged to have murdered his wife and against whom FIR No.566/92 was registered in the Police Station Lajpat Nagar under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, was released on bail by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi on 22nd August, 2000.
SETHI,J. Leave granted.
