1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application [APPLN] No. 1545 of 2010 (Bhagwan S/o. Dashrath Deotale Vs. State of Maharashtra and another) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. V. D. Awachat, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.M. Bhagde, APP for the State/respondent no. 1 Mr. Anil Mardikar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATE : 4 th JULY, 2011. Heard. This is an application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the non-applicant no. 2 in Misc. Cri. Application No. 1567/2010 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, vide order dated 24/08/2010. The prosecution case as unfolded in the F.I.R. is as under : One Sangita Deotale was serving as Police Constable in Special Branch, Nagpur City. She had put in 8 years of service. She was acquainted with one Dhaneshwar/respondent no. 2, who is also in police force holding post of Police Sub-Inspector. Sangita and respondent no. 2 were maintaining illicit relations. Both were in constant touch with each others on telephone or on cell phone. It is stated in F.I.R. that Sangita had cleared M.P.S.C examination and was qualified for the post of P.S.I. At the time of incident, the 2 respondent no. 2 was posted in Nashik District, whereas Sangita was posted at Nagpur. On 31/07/2010, Sangita consumed poison and died. She left a chit behind her stating that nobody should be blaimed for her suicide. On the basis of the report lodged by the father of Sangita, offence bearing crime no. 168/2010 under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the respondent no. 2. In the report, the father of deceased raised a doubt that soon before the incident the respondent no. 2 might have had a very objectionable conversation, which would have hurt the deceased. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing both the parties and after perusal of case-diary, observed that, “on perusal of the entire case-diary, the allegations are that the applicant was calling up Sangita repeatedly and pressurizing her. The entire investigation is silent with regards what was alleged demand by the applicant. There is no reason as to why she committed suicide. Admittedly, the present applicant was posted at Nashik and the deceased was posted in Nagpur. If there was any pressure, because of the applicant being a superior officer, she had every opportunity to report the matter to her superior. The deceased was serving in the police department for long. The applicant had assisted her for examination of PSI which she had passed. Considering these circumstances and the allegations levelled out, at the most from the allegations it cannot be said that he was calling her up on her 3 mobile. Prima-facie ingredients of Section 306 are not made out. There is no alleged instigation prima-facie suggested for such suicide. Investigating machinery has nearly completed its investigation and recorded statement of material witnesses. Considering all these circumstances, I am of the view that prima-facie case under Section 306 of instigation to commit suicide is not made out. Considering this, I am inclined to confirm the interim order”. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that considering the nature of accusation, the discretion of granting anticipatory bail should not have been exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. According to him, the fact that the respondent no. 2 was threatening the witnesses was brought to the notice of learned Additional Sessions Judge, which appears to have been ignored while passing the order. The investigation is now over. Even when the order was passed, the investigation was on the verge of completion. It is clarified that the respondent no. 2 is posted at Nashik. In this view of the matter, the apprehension, raised by learned counsel for the applicant that the respondent no. 2 may tamper with the prosecution witnesses etc., cannot be accepted. Considering the peculiar facts of the present case, particularly the position held by deceased Sangita and the circumstances showing that voluntarily she was maintaining affairs with the respondent no. 2, learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in granting anticipatory bail to the 4 respondent no. 2. I, therefore, find no merit in the application. Application is rejected. JUDGE *Sdw