1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1843 OF 2010 ( Ramlal Mohanlal Mansaramani Vs. State of Maharashtra PSO PS Hudkeshwar Nagpur & 3 Ors. ) ........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................ Shri Amit Khare Adv for applicant.s Shri S. M. Bhagde APP for non applicant/State. Shri C. H. Jaltare Adv for non applicants 2 to 4. CORAM: M. N. GILANI J. DATED: 11th JULY, 2011. . This is an application under Section 439(2) of Criminal Procedure Code for cancellation of bail. Respondents 2 to 4 are accused in Crime No. 155 of 2010 registered with Hudkeshwar Police Station Nagpur for the offence punishable under Section 304(b) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The facts which resulted in registration of the aforesaid crime are thus: Kamna a girl aged about 21 years was prosecuting her studies in MBA Degree Course. She got acquainted with 2 respondent no.2 and then they decided to marry. Since they belonged to different caste and community, there was resistance from the family. However, on 05.04.2010 couple married under Special Marriage Act. Unfortunately on 01.11.2010 Kamna hanged herself while she was in her matrimonial house and died. Her father/Ramlal lodged F. I. R. alleging that, initially for few days after marriage, Kamna had no contact with them. Kamna started complaining to her parents that her in-laws were demanding expenses which were incurred towards hosting marriage reception. It is further alleged that frequently Kamna was telling to her parents about the torture meted out to her by her in- laws. On the date of the incident at about 4 p.m. there was call from Kamna. On phone she repeated the same story that her in- laws were asking for the amount spent for hosting reception. It is further alleged that while saying so she was crying. After registration of the offence respondents 2 to 4 were arrested on 02.11.2010. Police obtained their police custody remand. The bail application moved by the applicants being Criminal Application No. 2235 of 2010 was decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. He directed release of all the applicants on bail with a condition of requiring them to attend Police Station till filing of the charge sheet. 3 Learned Additional Judge observed that allegations in F. I. R. are vague. Accused persons have been interrogated and investigation has been practically over. It is observed that applicants 2 and 3 are students and 4 is cultivator. He also made mention of suicide note and observed that it did not contain specific allegations against any body. Respondents 2 to 4 filed reply. They made counter attack on the applicant while stating that Kamna was being harassed by her parents since they were opposing to the marriage between her and the respondent no.2. According to them parents always used to phone her and disturb her marital life. Things went to such an extent that on 05.05.2010 respondent no.4/father-in- law of the deceased was required to lodge report in the police station Hudkeshwar about receipt of some anonymous letter. He raised suspicion against the father and brother of the deceased. On perusal of the order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, contents in the F. I. R. and the reply filed by the respondents 2 to 4, I am of the view that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to be perverse, although, it may be stated that before filing of the charge sheet discretion of releasing the respondent No.2 (husband of the deceased) on bail ought not to have been 4 exercised. It is well settled law that the consideration which should weigh with the Court while granting bail are different from the consideration which should weigh with the Court while canceling the bail. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision made which can be permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during trial. On instructions learned counsel for the respondents states that the trial has already begun and the two witnesses have been examined. In that light of the matter and for the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in this application. Application is rejected. JUDGE svk 5 From the date of taking charge i.e. from 17.03.2011 till 06.05.2011 His Lordship Hon'ble Shri Justice M.N. Gilani was sitting at High Court Bombay.