1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRI. APPLICATION NO. 126 OF 2009 (UMASHANKAR PRANDAS CHAUDHARI VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE NGP. & OTH. ) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri Y.S.Gorle, Advocate for applicant. Shri O.D.Kakade, A.P.P. for Respondents No.1 & 2. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : JANUARY 21, 2009. 1. This is an application for cancellation of bail, granted by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur to Non-applicants No.3 to 5, upon their surrender. The applicant is original complainant, who had complained to the police about the complicity of Non-applicants No.3 to 5 in the death of his sister, which occurred on 1st December, 2008. He has many grievances about the changes, which he was required to make in the report, which was received by the police. It would be for the Police Department to go into those grievances and decide whether the police officer concerned had acted high handedly. 2 2. Before granting bail to the Non-applicants No.3 to 5 the learned Additional Sessions Judge had heard the Investigating Officer after show cause notice was issued. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who is present before me, has not been able to point out that the order was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge without hearing the prosecution. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant seeks to place reliance on the observation of the Supreme Court in paragraph 9 of the judgment in Puran Vs. Rambilas, reported at AIR 2001 SC 2023. There can be no doubt that an order granting bail would be interfered with by the High Court if it is shown that such an order results any interference in due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice. It is not shown as to how the grant of bail to Non-applicants No.3 to 5 would result in interference with due course of justice. It is also not shown that Non-applicants No.3 to 5 have abused their liberty. It is true that Non-applicants No.3 to 5 are allegedly involved in heinous crime of bride 3 burning, but it is not that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is without reasons. He has considered the Dying Declaration of the victim in his order. 4. In view of this, since the exercise of discretion by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not shown to be arbitrary or wrong, interference is not called for. 5. Popular perception that the moment there is a report about an offence somebody has to be arrested, has to be discouraged, since ordinarily the investigation must be carried out without touching the person of the citizen. Pre-conviction detention has to be avoided, as far as possible. The application is, therefore, rejected. 6. Should the Investigating Officer feel that presence of Non-applicants No.3 to 5 in custody is necessary for the purpose of further investigation, the Investigating Officer would be at liberty to approach the Sessions Court. JUDGE RR.