Cri. Appln No. 2056/11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2056 OF 2011 Dadasaheb s/o. Bhanudas Dhatbale ....Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ....Respondents. Mr. Shripad Kulkarni, Advocate for applicant. Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for State/respondent. Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 2. CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : 4th August, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This application is filed for cancellation of bail granted by Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in bail petition No. 572/2011. The respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit in reply and some papers. All the sides are heard. The APP has supported the application filed for cancellation of bail. 2. The application is filed on the ground that on merits Sessions Court could not have granted bail. It was submitted that in the past Sessions Court had rejected the bail application on merits and the application which was allowed, was filed after filing of the chargesheet, but no other change in circumstance was brought to the notice of the Cri. Appln No. 2056/11 2 Court. It was submitted that the Sessions Court has not considered the possibility of tampering with the witnesses as there are witnesses on the circumstances of last seen from the same village. 3. In view of the contentions made for the applicant, this Court has carefully gone through the papers of investigation. The FIR is given by brother of deceased Sunita. Sunita was second wife of the respondent No. 2 and he married with Sunita after the death of first wife. At the time of marriage, respondent No. 2 had two sons and two daughters from the first wife. As the respondent No. 2 agreed to give two acres of land to Sunita, Sunita was given in marriage to respondent No. 2. One document came to be executed in favour of Sunita and two acres of land came to be entered in the name of Sunita. The eldest son of respondent No. 2 namely Babu, born from the first wife, was against giving of such land to Sunita and so he had strained relations with Sunita. 4. About one and half years prior to the date of incident one son was born to Sunita. Sunita started disclosing that after the birth of son, respondent No. 2 and Babu had started picking up quarrels with her by saying that one more sharer was born and so the share of Babu in the property was reduced. She used to disclose that they used to give threat that they would finish both Sunita and her son. On 29.12.2010 respondent No. 2 informed the parents of Sunita that Sunita was missing Cri. Appln No. 2056/11 3 since 7 pm. Search was made, but on that day, they could not trace Sunita. The dead body of Sunita and son of Sunita were found in the well of the land of respondent No. 2 on 1.1.2011. Dadasaheb, present applicant, then gave report that respondent No. 2 and his son Babu must murdered both Sunita and her son and they must have thrown the dead bodies in the well. 5. The well where the dead bodies were found was having parapet wall of 3 fts. from the ground level and there was water having depth of 15 fts. The well has depth of 35 fts. and the level of the water was at the distance of 20 fts. from the ground level. At one place some arrangement was made for taking out the water and wheel was fixed there. In the field one insecticide's box was found. It was taken over by police. The PM on the dead body was conducted. Doctor has given opinion that the son of the deceased died due to asphyxia due to drowning. The opinion regarding the cause of death of Sunita is reserved by doctor and viscera is sent to CA office. However, there was watering froth in the lungs of Sunita. Doctor did not find any injury on both the dead bodies. 6. In the police papers, there is copy of sale deed executed in favour of Sunita by respondent No. 2 and it is dated 3.5.2008. The land admeasuring 2 acres from Gat No. 1785 was given to the deceased. The advocate of the respondent No. 2 submitted that immediately after the Cri. Appln No. 2056/11 4 death of Sunita, the father of Sunita took steps to enter his name in place of name of Sunita and he sold this land for the consideration of Rs. two lacs to one Pralhad Pawar. Copy of the sale deed dated 25.3.2011 is produced and copy of mutation is also produced. On the basis of this circumstance, it was submitted that the intention behind the present proceedings and giving of the report was different and this circumstance needs to be considered at the time of consideration of the present application. In respect of this circumstance for applicant, it was submitted that brother has given the complaint and not the father. 7. The aforesaid circumstances show that Sessions Court rightly used discretion and granted bail in favour of respondent No. 2. No fault can be found with the order of the Sessions Court. In view of the papers of investigation, it can be said that the apprehension expressed by the applicant that the respondent No. 2 will tamper the prosecution witnesses, has no force. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that the application is devoid of merits and the application stands rejected. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] ssc/criapln2056.11