1appln-4199-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 4199 of 2009 (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) Lalchand Ananta Dangat .. .. Applicant. versus Shankarrao Vitthal Beldare Patil and others .. .. Respondents. Mr S. A. Ingawale i/by V. B. Tapkir , for the Applicant. Mr Pradeep M. Patil for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr Y. M. Nakhawa, A.P.P.,for the State. ------- CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 22nd JULY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this application for cancellation of regular bail preferred by the applicant – first informant, father of the deceased woman, namely, Varsha. By the 2appln-4199-09 present application, it is prayed that the order dated 4.6.2009, granting bail to the present respondents – accused Nos. 1 to 3, may be cancelled. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were charged in connection with C.R. No.156/2009 registered by Haveli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 read with section 34 of I.P.Code. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 2.3.2009 deceased woman set herself on fire on account of torture and ill-treatment given to her namely, by her mother-in-law and other relatives women. Immediately after some time of giving such statement said woman succumbed to the burn injuries. On 3.3.2009 dead body was claimed by the present applicant, father of the deceased. However, complaint was registered by the concerned Police Station only on 13.3.2009. In the present case, there are specific allegations detailed with various instances of demand of dowry by way of cash, various ornaments, vehicle, jewellery etc. The complaint is running about nine pages and it contain the submissions as to the deceased making oral dying declaration before the first informant and this was immediately after she gave the dying declaration to the police. It is factual position that the dying declaration recorded by the police in presence of the Medical Officer after 3appln-4199-09 obtaining his endorsement as to consciousness and fitness of the woman to give such declaration mentions that she poured kerosene on her person, because of the ill-treatment meted out to her by her mother-in-law and other women relatives. Specifically, in the said dying declaration, there is clear mention that her husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law are not involved in the matter and she had no complaint against them. As against such dying declaration recorded by the police in the immediate proximity prior to her death, in the F.I.R. recorded on 13.3.2009 there is mention that the first informant, father of the deceased woman, was told by her that her husband, brother-in- law and both the in-laws were responsible for her such condition. It is also alleged in the F.I.R.that she further told the first informant that her small child shall be taken care of by him. 3. During the arguments, learned Advocate for the applicant i.e.the first informant, submitted that even at the first point in time i.e. immediately on noticing such oral dying declaration, a letter was sent to the Commissioner of Police, Pune on 3.3.2009 as the local police did not record the statement. On careful examination of contents of the said letter sent to the Commissioner of Police, there is mention that such oral dying declaration was made before paternal-uncle 4appln-4199-09 Chandrakant Dangat and one Arun Dangat by the said deceased woman. There is no mention that said first informant was present at that time. Considering such discrepancy, prima facie appearing, without going much into the merits of the authenticity of any such allegation, suffice it to say that there is no such over-whelming circumstances so as to take away the relief of bail already granted and enjoyed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for about a year. Needless to mention that concerned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune shall take all the endeavour to decide the matter on merits of the case without being influenced by any of the observations made in the present order. 4. Considering the rival submissions and the availability of material, so far as lack of allegations against the husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law, it would not be in the fitness of situation to cancel their bail at this stage of the matter. When the matter is for framing of the charge and then to be taken up for recording of the evidence, suitable directions for expeditious disposal can be given. In the result, the following order:- ORDER: (a) Criminal Application No. 4199/2009 stands rejected. 5appln-4199-09 (b) Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, who is seized of the matter, shall dispose of the matter, as early as possible after framing of the charge and preferably within nine months from the date of receipt of this order. (c) Learned Additional Sessions Judge shall not be influenced by the observations made in the present order, so far as merits of the case are concerned. 5. Application is disposed of in terms of this order. (A.R.JOSHI,J) LRS-PA