1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.18/2011. (Vikram s/o Devrao Chavan .Vs. State of Maharashtra thro. PSO PS Wadgaon Road, Yavatmal and three others) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. Vinod Anand , Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Rajnish Vyas, Advocate for R-2 to R-4. Mr. N.R. Rode, APP for R-1. .......... CORAM: M.N. GILANI, J. DATE: 08.06.2011. Heard both sides. The respondent nos.2 to 4 are the accused in Crime No. 48/2010 registered at the Police Station Wadgaon, District Yavatmal, under Sections 363, 364, 120 (a), 201, 302 r/w 34 of the IPC. Incident occurred due to enmity between the accused no.1 and the deceased Suresh Chavan. Mangala had married with the accused no.1 in the year 2006. Because of the matrimonial discord she started residing with her parents. In the year 2009 she came in contact with the deceased Suresh Chavan and developed affairs with him. She started residing with him. It was a reason for accused no.1 to hatch a conspiracy with his two associates to kill Suresh Chavan. 2 The plan was executed on 28.02.2010. After registration of the offence accused no.1 to 3 came to be arrested. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence collected by the prosecution released them on bail. On the ground that the accused no.1 threatened Mangala who is an eye witness in the crime, an application under Section 439 (2) of the Cr.P.C. was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 23.12.2010 rejected the application on the ground that allegations of threat administered to witness Mangala have not been substantiated. Therefore, the applicant has approached this Court with prayer to cancel the bail granted to accused no.1 to 3. The learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the statement of Mangala recorded by the police on 17.09.2010. According to him, the accused have misused the liberty granted to them while releasing them on bail. Therefore, to ensure fair trial it is necessary that liberty granted to them be withdrawn by cancelling their bail bonds, he urged. The learned counsel appearing for the accused no.1 to 3 (respondent no.2 to 4 herein) contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed well reasoned and speaking order while rejecting the application for cancellation of bail. Perusal of the statement of Mangala dated 17.09.2010 shows that she was threatened on Mobile one month prior to the lodging of the report. Second incident of giving threats occurred 15 days prior. On third occasion i.e. on 10.9.0210 at 05-00 p.m. when she 3 was making some purchases at the Bus Stand at Yavatmal, accused no.1 approached her and threatened that if she does not withdraw her complaint she would be killed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge fPAound fault with the allegations made by Mangala and rightly so. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that, “the witness Mrs. Mangala had lodged the report on 17.09.2010 at Police Station Wadgaon Road, Yavatmal, alleging that before one month, the accused gave her threat on mobile to withdraw her statement otherwise he will kill her. Before 15 days also he threatened this witness to kill her. Furthermore on 10.09.2010 at about 5-00 p.m. When she was purchasing some material at Bus Stop, Yavatmal the accused no.1 again threatened to kill her. Perused the charge-sheet. The application for grant of bail of accused no.1 was granted on 02.09.2010. The accused no. 1 furnished bail on 07.09.2010 and accordingly he was released. Therefore, the allegation of the witness Sau. Mangala that the accused no.1 threatened her on phone before one month of lodging report and also before 15 days of lodging report are not acceptable. The prosecution along with charge-sheet filed the report of Sau. Mangala on record dated 01.08.2009, 22.08.2009 and 4 the registration of N.C. offence against the accused no.1 on 09.02.2008. It appears that there are strain relations between witness Sau. Mangala and accused no.1 since prior to the date of incident. Furthermore, the witness Sau. Mangala has initiated the proceedings u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce against the accused no1 on the ground of ill-treatment and threatening to kill her before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yavatmal. Though the witness Sau. Mangala alleged in her report that on 10.09.2010 at about 05-00 p.m. accused threatened to kill her at S.T. Stand, Yavatmal, she lodged the report of said incident on 17.09.2010 and no reason is offered by her for delay in lodging the report. Furthermore, the application is not supported with an affidavit of Sau. Mangala Chilgalwar.” The aforesaid observation are consistent with the material placed on record. The allegations levelled by witness Mangala are not well founded. In this view of the matter the prayer for cancellation of bail cannot be entertained. The application is rejected. JUDGE Nikhare