1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1321 OF 2010 (Balaji Ramkrushna Korde .v. Santosh Keshao Sawake and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri S.D. Madke, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.D. Chande, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Shri M.J. Khan, APP for respondent No.6/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 02ND DECEMBER, 2010. Heard. By way of present application, the applicant is seeking regular cancellation of bail which was granted to the non- applicant Nos.1 to 5 vide order dated 21.07.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the brother of victim Pushpa. He further submits that Pushpa was married to one Santosh Sawake and initially for the period of two years, everything was well within the couple. Subsequently, the sister of the applicant Pushpa subjected to ill treatment at the hands of the husband and other in-laws. Out of the said wedlock, Pushpa begotten four children i.e. three daughters and a son. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that as the ill treatment was unbearable, Pushpa committed suicide by setting herself on fire. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 approached to the learned Sessions Court for seeking pre-arrest bail apprehending their arrest. Learned Sessions Court, by an order dated 21.07.2010, allowed the application which is under challenge. The main grounds raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant are – (i) that the learned Sessions Court has not appreciated the material before him in its proper perspective and ultimately arrived at erroneous conclusion and thereby allowed the application; and (ii) that one of the applicants namely Raju 2 gave threats to the applicant and this fact has not considered by the learned Sessions Court. Learned APP has filed the reply and supported the application. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that the material was placed before the learned Sessions Court. On consideration of the material, the learned Sessions Court found that the material is not enough so as to require the custodial interrogation of the non-applicants. He invites my attention to the observations of the learned Sessions Court at page 15 para 8 of the order that while considering the dying declaration recorded by the learned JMFC, the victim specifically stated that because of an accident i.e. fall of kerosene lamp on her saree, she caught fire. It is further observed that the victim was admitted on 01.07.2010 and she was undergoing the treatment for the period of five days and on 05.07.2010, she succumbed to the injuries. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 further submits that the ground raised by the applicant that the threats given by one Raju is also considered by the learned Sessions Court. The application for opposing the bail filed by the applicant is placed on record. Though it is stated that on 15.07.2010, one Raju under influence of liquor, gave threats to the applicant, there is nothing on record to show that any report came to be lodged with the police authorities. Not only this, it is revealed from the record that though the application was filed, the same was rejected on the ground that Raju was already arrested. In view of the fact that Raju was arrested on 12.07.2010, it creates a doubt that in the allegation against Raju that he has threatened the applicant on 15.07.2010. The order passed by the learned Sessions Court is well reasoned order. Learned Counsel for the applicant invites my attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Ranjanabai w/o Kisansing Dumale .v. State of Maharashtra and others (reported in 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 2337). In my considered opinion, the said judgment is not applicable to the present case. In the aforesaid 3 judgment, it was observed that in view of the threats, a report was lodged; whereas there is nothing on record to show that the applicant had lodged any report to the police and apart from that Raju against whom the allegations of threats levelled, was arrested on 12.07.2010. On considering the material, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is well reasoned order. The material was properly considered. As such, no interference at the hands of this Court is called for. In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE *rrg.