1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.1698/2010 ( Smt. Kalpana W/o Bhimrao Manohare ..Vs.. The State of Maharashtra, through P.SO., Ashti, Distt. Wardha and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S.B. Wahane, Adv. for applicant. Mr. N.R. Rode, A.P.P. for respondent no.1/State. Mr. A.S. Mardikar, Adv. for respondent nos.2 to 6. CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATED : 22.6.2011. 1. This is an application under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of anticipatory bail, granted to the non-applicants 2 to 6 by order dated 31/8/2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.454/2010. 2. Against these non-applicants offences bearing Crime No.41/2010, under sections 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were registered on the report lodged by applicant on 13/8/2010. 3. The applicant Kalpana has two sons by name Pravin aged 22 2 years and Pankaj 20 years. At about 2.45 p.m. the applicant received message that Pravin was beaten by the non-applicants. The applicant who was in her field returned to the house. Pravin was found in the house of one Dnyaneshwar Kosre. There were injuries on the person of Pravin. When she started taking him to her house, the non-applicants restrained her. When she wanted to take him to police station at that time also the non-applicants prevented her from proceeding to police station and also hurled caste abuses. The applicant, her elder son and Pravin could manage to go to police station on motorcycle. Pravin was sent for medical examination. Thereafter they returned to the house to their village. In the night at 11 p.m. Pravin consumed insecticides. He was carried to the hospital but could not be saved. F.I.R. incorporating the aforesaid facts, was lodged to the police station Ashti, Distt. Amravati and on that basis the offences, as stated above, came to be registered. 4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after examining the case diary observed that case under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. He also observed that the offence under section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is also not made out and therefore, directions under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code were issued. 3 5. Mr. Wahane, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, contended that the findings recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge are perverse and inconsistent with the evidence collected by the prosecution. According to him, bar of section 18 of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was ignored by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while issuing directions under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He also contended that after the order impugned was passed, the non-applicants indulged in threatening the complainant and because of that the police were required to be deployed to maintain law and order. 6. Learned counsel for the non-applicants contended that after filing of the chargesheet, non-applicants appeared before the Court and were released on regular bail and as such this application has become infructuous. 7. There is a substance in the contention of learned counsel for the non-applicants 2 to 6 that, because of subsequent developments like the police filling chargesheet and the non-applicants applying for grant of regular bail and thereafter they having been released on regular bail, this application has become infructuous. Even by upholding the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant, if directions issued by learned Additional Sessions Judge under section 438 of the Criminal 4 Procedure Code are set aside, it would not result in non-applicants being put in custody. This is for the reason that there is no challenge to the order granting them regular bail. Although this application has become infructuous learned counsel for the applicant prayed for adjudicating the issue on merits. Therefore, I proceed to discuss the merits of the case. 8. It is well settled principle that only when a person to whom bail has been granted either tries to interfere with the course of justice or attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation or trial, bail granted can be cancelled. Factors relevant for setting aside an order of granting bail and directing cancellation of bail are wholly distinct and different. An application for cancellation of bail must be premised on the factors envisaged under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Rejection of bail stand on one footing while cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence, it must not be lightly resorted to. 9. The incident of threats quoted by the applicant is dated 26/8/2010. In the application itself it is averred that cognizance of the same was not taken by the police. Again on 27/9/2010 they were threatened for which they lodged complaint and non-cognizable offence was registered. The applicant has placed on record copy of the report 5 dated 21/8/2010 which was lodged by Police Patil of the said village. He had mentioned in the report that because of the love affairs, the deceased Pravin consumed poison. Against opposite party the offence has been registered. However, there is possibility to breach of piece on trivial issue and therefore, he asked for police protection. It is not very much clear as to which side was indulging in breach of piece. Moreover allegations of threat were also considered by learned Additional Sessions Judge in para 4 of the order and found them without substance. 10. As regards provisions of section 18 of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 learned Additional Sessions Judge in para 3 observed that the incident is an outcome of suicide by Pravin. Admittedly, it was an outcome of some love affairs. There is no nexus between the incident and the alleged allegations that the non-applicants abused or intentionally insulted the applicant on the ground of caste. This being the state of material produced on the record, I do not find any merit in this application. 12. Application is rejected. JUDGE Tambaskar.