(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 2895 of 2011 Ujwala w/o. Madhukamal Hiwale, Age : 39 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Ashirwad Colony, Flat No. 34, S.A. Mission, Near New Church, Nandurbar, .. Applicant Taluka & District : Nandurbar. (Original complainant) versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar, District : Ahmednagar. 2. Hirabai w/o. Ramesh Ghodke, Age : 70 years, Occupation : Household, .. Respondents R/o. Gulabsing Compound, (No.2 - Original Station Road, Ahmednagar. accused) ....................... Mr. A.K. Gawali, Advocate, for the applicant. (2) Smt. R.K. Ladda, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent no.1. Mr. P.P. Dudile, Advocate, for respondent no.2. ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 25TH AUGUST 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Perused the investigation papers which were made available for inspection purpose, as well as, heard learned respective Counsel for the parties, finally. 2. This is an application preferred by the original complainant, namely, Ujwala w/o. Madhukamal Hiwale, for cancellation of bail granted to respondent no.2, namely, Hirabai w/o. Ramesh Ghodke, which was granted to her by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-6, Ahmednagar, by order dated 27th June 2011, passed below Exhibit 1 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 808/2011. 3. It was canvassed by learned Adv. Mr. A.K. Gawali, (3) for the applicant (original complainant), that the incident of death of victim Smita took place on 16th June 2011, and thereafter, respondent no.2 was arrested under Crime No. 214/2011, registered at Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar, and she was enlarged on bail after 11 days i.e. on 27th June 2011 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-6, Ahmednagar, which is canvassed to be objectionable. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that while granting bail to respondent no.2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-6, Ahmednagar, by order dated 26th June 2011, no condition was imposed upon her although the investigation was in progress. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant, that victim Smita had left a letter before her death, which reflects that she was subjected to physical, mental and financial cruelty by the respondent no.2 and husband of the victim, and the said letter speaks for itself. Moreover, it is further submitted that the death of the victim Smita is suspicious and it is not clear whether she met with suicidal death or homicidal death, and apparently, she was found hanging in a dilapidated house, and that suspicion is created about the cause of her death, and hence submitted that under this scenario, bail granted to respondent no.2 deserves to be cancelled. 4. Learned APP Smt. R.K. Ladda, for respondent no.1 / (4) State, has supported the present application. 5. Learned Adv. Mr. P.P. Dudile, for respondent no.2, countered the aforesaid arguments and opposed the present application by filing affidavit in reply, and submitted that the letter at Exhibit "A", allegedly written by the victim Smita, does not bear any date, and it is submitted that the said letter is fabricated. It is also canvassed by the learned Counsel for respondent no.2, that the allegations made against respondent no. 2, in the FIR, are of general and omnibus nature and they do not attribute any specific role to the respondent no.2 herein. It is also submitted by learned Counsel for respondent no.2, that the post mortem notes disclose probable cause of death of the victim Smita, as hanging, which itself clarifies that she committed suicide and the said death cannot be construed as homicidal death. Besides, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 has pointed out that the applicant herein opposed the bail application before learned Additional Sessions Judge, by filing application, and considering her submissions, bail was granted to respondent no. 2, and hence, same need not be cancelled. 6. Moreover, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 has relied upon judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of Prithviraj Shivaji Chavan & others Vs. State of (5) Maharashtra & others, reported at 2002(Cri. Supp.) Bom. C.R. 294, wherein this Court has observed thus : " The criteria which is to be applied for grant of bail and for cancellation of the bail always depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case which vary case to case, accused to accused, complaint to complaint. Therefore, at the time of considering the prayer of bail or at the time of considering the prayer for cancellation of bail, the Court has to be circumspect and has to inform itself about the process by which the investigating agency has collected the material against the accused for going to the trial. The Court has to inform itself about the seriousness of the case which has been depicted by the material which has been collected by the investigating agency against the accused. At the same time the antecedents of the accused, his influence in the society, his roots in the society, his availability for the trial, possibility of such an accused tampering with the evidence, subverting, impending the cause of the trial has to be given due importance. When it is the prayer for bail, strength of the material which has been collected by the investigating agency against such accused has to be given appropriate weightage. The material which the prosecution is having with it for going to the trial has to be also given appropriate consideration. At the same time, larger interest of the society has also to be seen and (6) there comes the point of seriousness of the crime which has been alleged to have been committed by the accused. It will have to be seen whether witnesses would be able to speak in Court without any outside influence on them. " Accordingly, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 urged that the parameters required for cancellation of bail do not exist in the present matter, and therefore, present application deserves to be rejected. 7. On perusal of the contents of the present application, its annexures, and after considering rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, anxiously, as well as, after considering the observations made in the above referred judicial pronouncements, carefully, it is apparent that bail was granted to respondent no.2 after considering the submissions advanced by the applicant herein since she had opposed the said bail application before the learned Sessions Court, and therefore, there is no room for the applicant herein that her contentions and submissions were not considered. 8. Moreover, respondent no.2 is mother-in-law of victim Smita, who is aged woman having age of about 70 years. Moreover, it is also apparent from the contents of the FIR, that (7) the allegations against respondent no.2 herein appear to be of general and omnibus nature and no specific role has been attributed to her, and therefore, I do not find any illegality in granting bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, to the respondent no.2. 9. As regards the letter at Exhibit "A", allegedly written by the victim, to Kotwali Police Station, Ahmednagar, it is not desirable to make any comment thereon, at this stage. 10. Besides, the parameters for cancellation of bail are stringent and the said parameters do not appear to be in existence in the present matter, and therefore, bail granted to the respondent no.2 cannot be cancelled. Moreover, respondent no.2 is an old woman aged about 70 years. It is submitted that she is taking care of two children of the victim Smita, one is son who is aged about 6 years, and younger daughter who is aged about 4 months, and it is also submitted that if her bail is cancelled, upbringing of said children would be in danger since their mother is expired and father is in jail. 11. Apart from that, grievance was made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, that the respondent no.2 was not traceable after grant of bail since no condition was imposed upon (8) her. Considering the said grievance, necessary condition can be imposed upon respondent no.2 to meet the said apprehension. 12. Besides, it appears from the order dated 27th June 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-6, Ahmednagar, that while granting bail to the respondent no.2, no condition has been imposed upon respondent no.2, which in fact, is not approved, and therefore, necessary condition is required to be imposed upon respondent no.2, as mentioned herein below. 13. In the circumstances, having substratum of the matter, and considering rival submissions and judicial pronouncements, I am not inclined to accept the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant, and present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits, and same deserves to be dismissed, with necessary modification in the order dated 27th June 2011, as mentioned herein below. 14. In the result, present Criminal Application stands dismissed, but the order dated 27th June 2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-6, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. No. 808/2011, stands modified and following conditions are imposed upon respondent no.2 herein i.e. original accused, namely, Hirabai w/o. Ramesh Ghodke :- (9) (i) The respondent no.2 Hirabai shall give attendance before the concerned investigator once in a week i.e. on every Monday between 02.00 p.m. to 05.00 p.m., till filing of charge sheet, and shall cooperate in the investigation. (ii) The respondent no.2 shall furnish her present address to the concerned investigator and shall inform any change therein to the concerned investigator, henceforth. (iii) The respondent no.2 shall give attendance before the concerned investigator once in a month i.e. on first Monday of each month, after filing of charge sheet, till disposal of the trial. (iv) The respondent no.2 shall not influence upon witnesses and/or tamper with the evidence, in any manner, whatsoever, directly or indirectly. Present Criminal Application stands disposed of finally. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE bgp/ka2895