1 criapln2769-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2769 OF 2011 1] Dnyandeo S/o Narayan Gomashe. .. APPLICANT Vs 1] The State of Maha. [Through Police Station,Aundha Tq. Aundha,Dist.Hingoli Copy to be served on PP. High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad] 2] Dnyaneshwar s/o Prabhakar Tompe 3] Sopan S/o Prabhakar Tompe ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri S.R.Bagal, Adv.for applicants. Shri N.H.Borade,APP for R-State. Shri S.K.Adkine,Adv.for R.2 & 3. ... CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE,J. DATE : 10/08/2011 ORAL ORDER: 1] This application is filed for cancellation of bail granted by Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar, Dist. Hingoli to respondents 2 and 3. Papers of investigation were made available. 2 criapln2769-11 APP has supported the applicant. Advocate of the respondents 2 and 3 was also heard. 2] The crime is registered on the basis of report given by wife of respondent no.2. She was given in marriage to respondent no.2 on 30/5/10. It is her allegation that the husband and relatives were not satisfied with customary gifts given in marriage and on that count, they were teasing her and they were giving ill treatment to her. The main allegation is that on 19/5/11, at about 10 a.m. when she and her husband were present in the field, husband picked up quarrel with her on petty ground and he assaulted her on cheek and on her leg by using iron bar and then he assaulted her with kicks and fist blows. She has made allegation that the husband forcibly administered insecticide to her and gave threat of life. She has contended that persons like Navnath Gomase, Maruti Puri shifted her to private hospital. 3] The incident is dated 19/5/11 and police recorded statement on 21/5/11. Crime came to be registered on 23/5/11. Police papers show that there is statement recorded by Executive Magistrate on 21/5/11. In the statement, the Magistrate has observed that when he was recording statement, there were marks of violence on cheek and on leg. 4] Papers include record of treatment given in private hospital. 3 criapln2769-11 Though it can be said that the papers are not complete, the papers are sufficient to infer that it was case of poisoning. There was general weakness and giddiness on the date of admission. Papers do not show that at any stage, the complainant was unconscious. Papers of investigation show that the persons on her side who include some persons from the village of the respondents 2 and 3 had reached the spot immediately after hearing about the incident. Inspite of this circumstance, statement was given late. 5] Advocate of the applicant submitted that Sessions Court has wrongly observed that the husband and relatives had shifted the complainant to hospital when there is no such record. It is already observed that the record of the private hospital is not complete. If the statement of witness like Maruti is seen, [this witness is on the side of the complainant], it can be said that there is much exaggeration. In the statements of witnesses who have given statements for complainant, even when the complainant had not expressed any grievance in respect of the incident against brother of the husband and mother of the husband, they have taken names of these 2 persons. Record does not include any injury certificate. 6] Sessions Court has observed that the intention to commit murder cannot be inferred on the basis of record collected by police. Even if this observation is ignored and it is held that there is sufficient 4 criapln2769-11 material on record to make prima facie case against husband, only on that ground, the husband cannot be refused bail. In such cases, there is no possibility of tampering with the prosecution witnesses. The nature of allegations need to be kept in mind and due to nature of the allegations and the record, other possibilities are also required to be considered by the Court. This Court has avoided to observe with regard to the other possibilities as this observation will come in the way of the trial Court while deciding the matter. It can be said that sufficient reasons are given by Sessions Court for granting bail and the main points like delay caused in giving of the report and the absence of injuries on the person of the complainant are considered by Sessions Court. 7] For the applicant, one case reported in AIR S.C. 2011 page 274 [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar V/s Ashis Chatterjee and another] was cited and one order passed in Criminal Application No.2212/10 is produced. The facts and circumstances of each and every case are always different. There is no ratio as such on the point of cancellation of bail granted. In the present case, it cannot be said that the order of Sessions Court is perverse. One more contention is made that threat was given to the complainant after getting released on bail. Copy of application dated 21/6/11 is produced. Father of the complainant has made allegation that threats were given to him. He is resident of Shirala, Tahsil Aundha and the respondents are residents of Surwadi, 5 criapln2769-11 Tahsil Aundha. Generally, such circumstances are created when parties are interested in getting relief like cancellation of bail. No other antecedents are against respondents 2 and 3. In these circumstances, this Court holds that application is devoid of merits. So application stands rejected. [T.V.NALAWADE,J.] umg/criapln2769-11