1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1868/2010 (Kamlakar Maroti Sawant .vs. State of Mah. through PSO PS Khandala, Dist. Yavatmal and ors. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. Chaware, advocate h/f Mr. V.M. Deshpande, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. A.S. Sonare, APP for Respondent no.1. Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, advocate for Respondents no.2 and 3. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : APRIL 30, 2011 Heard. By the present application, the applicant Kamlakar Maroti Sawant who is father of the deceased Ranjana, has sought cancellation of the bail granted to respondent no.2 vide order dated 11.8.2010 in connection with crime No. 35/2010 registered with Khandala Police Station, district Yavatmal for offence under Sections 302, 498-A and 201 read with 34 of IPC. The crime in question was registered on 20.7.2010 upon the written complaint given by the applicant inter alia alleging that his daughter Ranjana,aged 24 years, was killed due to hanging. She had married with Gajanan Anandrao Nanwate about 10 2 years prior to lodging the said complaint and had son and daughter out of the said wedlock. As per the say of Ranjana on most of the occasions, they had fulfilled the demand for money made by the persons from the side of her in-laws. Her mother-in-law Vatsalabai, her brother-in-law Dr. Bharat, elder brother-in-law Vijay and her husband were continuously subjecting her to mental and physical cruelty on the count of bringing Rs. 2 lacs from her parents for purchasing a jeep. She had informed about the said demand to her elder brother after he had been to the place of her in-laws. She had informed that in event of money being not brought, there was danger to her life from them. She had also told him in the said meeting of the said person telling her of taking her life in event of their monetary demand being not fulfilled. Accordingly, as per the threatening given, on 20.7.2010 at about 1 noon all of them had murdered her by strangulating by means of rope and with an object of destroying the evidence of the murder had falsely informed them on mobile of herself having died due to heart attack. All the arrangements were made for disposing the corpse before they had reached the said place. After the first informant and the persons from his side had observed the corpse , they had seen the marks of rope visible around her neck regarding herself being killed by strangulation. Serious wounds were also seen at the right side of her stomach etc. Though they had made an effort to gather the information from granddaughter and grandson , the said accused persons had not allowed them to talk with them and taken away children by leaving the corpse at the 3 said place. It is the grievance of the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Sessions Judge failed to take into consideration that respondent no.2 is a Doctor by profession and in spite of the same, he conveyed falsely to the applicant Ranjana having died due to heart attack. It is urged that the deceased had died due to hanging/strangulation and hence giving of such false information by respondent no.2 being indicative of the same being for causing disappearance of the evidence with intent to screen the real offenders i.e. the brothers and mother of respondent no.2. The aforesaid submissions were rightly countered by the learned counsel for respondent no.2 by pointing out that there was no evidence in the material collected, on the date on which the bail was granted, that respondent no.2 had examined the deceased prior to giving said information. It is urged that unless such a facet was borne from the material on the record, no inference that he had deliberately given false information for such object to the applicant could be drawn and particularly respondent no.2 residing separately and the material collected being devoid of any material revealing that he had been to the said house where the death had ensued. It was rightly canvassed by the learned counsel for respondent no.2 that the fact of respondent no.2 immediately intimating the parents of the deceased also militates against his intent being enabling the culprits, if any, to cause the disappearance of the evidence of their acts. All the submissions are found in consonance with the material 4 which were then available before the learned Sessions Judge while deciding the prayer for bail. Having regard to the same, it is difficult to find any fault with the order of bail passed in favour of respondent no.2 and particularly hardly there being any material then before the Court regarding his involvement in an offence punishable with death and imprisonment of life. Hence it is difficult to find any merits in the prayer made for cancellation of bail. In view of the same, application deserves to be and accordingly stands dismissed. JUDGE halwai