1 CR.APL NO.910/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.910 OF 2011 Raosaheb s/o Appasaheb Dhokchaule, Age: 30 years, Occu. Agril., r/o Ranjan Khol, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. ..APPLICANT. (Paternal Uncle of deceased i.e. Orig.Complainant) VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, Rahuri Police Station, Tq.Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Raosaheb s/o Rangnath Dod, Age 45 years, Occu: Business, R/o. Shingave Naik, Tq.Nagar, Dist.Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.R.V.Gore, Adv., for the applicant. Mr.K.S.Patil, APP for respondent State Mr.S.S.Jadhavar, Adv., for respondent no.2. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:19/4/2011 *** PER COURT : 1. Heard. Grant of bail to the respondent Raosaheb by the District Judge III and Additional 2 CR.APL NO.910/2011 Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, by order dt.17th Feb.,2011, in Criminal Application No.169/2011 is questioned by uncle of the deceased. 2. Mr.Gore, while attempting to slashing the orders of the learned Judge, informs, the Judge did not consider the gravity or, the nature of accusations; in particular, the offense to be punishable with life or death, in terms of Section 302 of IPC. The plea of alibi projected by the respondent Raosaheb is also considered without there being an iota. Learned Judge, according to him, had acted on his own assumptions and surmises, to release the accused, barely within 22/24 days of his arrest. 3. Mr. Gore, in order to impress his submissions, placed reliance to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of 2008 (13) SCC 584 ( Dr.Narendra K.Amin Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr), 2009 Bom.C.R.(Cri) 2 858 : 2009 DGLS ( Cri.) Soft 1362 (Ganesh Balu Borase Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) and Criminal Application No.65/2011 (Vaijanath s/o Devappa Longankar), dt.25.3.2011 by this Court. 4. There cannot be a quarrel on proposition of law enunciated in the above referred three judgments. The judgment in the matter of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and 3 CR.APL NO.910/2011 Anr. ( 2004 (7) SCC 528), paragraph no.11 thereof reads as under: "11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offense. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non- application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehnsion of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge ( See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh ( 2002(3) SC 598 and Puran v. Rambilas ( 2001(6)SCC 338)." The Apex Court also indicated that the conditions 4 CR.APL NO.910/2011 laid down under Section 437(1)(i) are sine qua non for granting bail even under Section 439 of the Code. 5. The contention that plea of alibi was agitated and considered is not to be seen in the order under criticism, though it was so referred in the application. Learned Judge simply ignored the same. The role attributed to respondent Raosaheb was, he directed husband of the deceased, not to extinguish the fire. That will not primarily attract infraction of Section 302 of IPC. The respondent is a resident of Shingave Naik, Tq. and dist. Ahmednagar. Learned Judge found that there was no specific overt act attributed to him and conditions were imposed. Since plea of alibi was not considered and it was the role attributed to the respondent which was considered, as the respondent has undergone custody of about 22 days, nothing fruitful was expected from keeping him in custody, even at the stage of progress in the investigation. Learned Judge, indeed, has taken care to prevent visit of respondent to village Umbare, Taluka Rahuri, where the incident has occurred or, to village Ranjankhol Tal.Rahata, Taluka Rahata, where parents of deceased Madhuri reside. No case of misuse of liberty by hurting feelings of the complainant or the witnesses. 5 CR.APL NO.910/2011 Overall survey of above facts illustrate, the bail granted by the learned District Judge, referred above, does not fit in the bracket of terming it as a perverse order or that the learned Judge acted with the record which was not available. Consequently, the request for termination of the order is rejected. Application stands dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/910-11crapl