1 Cri. Application No.1959/2010 with Cri. Application No.1960/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1959 OF 2010 Gangadhar s/o Tukaram Jadhav ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.G. Ladda with Shri D.S. Manorkar, Advocates for petitioner Shri N.B. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1/State Shri R.J. Nirmal, Advocate holding for Shri Mahesh Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.2 & 3 ..... W I T H CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1960 OF 2010 Gangadhar s/o Tukaram Jadhav ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.G. Ladda with Shri D.S. Manorkar, Advocates for petitioner Shri N.B. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1/State Shri S.L. Jondhale, Advocate for respondent No.2. Shri R.J. Nirmal, Advocate holding for Shri Mahesh Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.3 & 4 ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 11th January, 2011. PER COURT : 1. By present two applications, grant of regular bail in 2 Cri. Application No.1959/2010 with Cri. Application No.1960/2010 Criminal Misc. Application 368/2010 by learned Additional Sessions Judge to respondents Rajendra and Annarao is questioned. In the latter application, grant of pre-arrest bail to respondents, Vasant, Manda and Shobha vide Criminal Misc. Application 367/2010, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-2, Jalna, is sought to be quashed and cancelled. 2. Suvarna, daughter of the petitioner was married to respondent No.2 Rajendra on 30.5.2009. Suvarna died on 1.5.2010 due to consumption of poison at her matrimonial house at Babhulgaon, Taluka Bhokardan. Owing to the report of her father, present petitioner, respondents Rajendra and Annarao were taken in custody on 3.5.2010, remanded to police custody till 5.5.2010 and vide order under challenge dated 12.5.2010, were directed to be released on bail. 3. The petitioner submits, the marriage of his daughter Suvarna with respondent No.2 Rajendra was in close relations. There was demand of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry at the time of marriage. However, owing to his poor financial position, he could arrange Rs.60,000/- in cash, paid to respondent No.2 Rajendra. His daughter Suvarna was mentally and physically 3 Cri. Application No.1959/2010 with Cri. Application No.1960/2010 harassed three months after her marriage, for the reasons of not complying balance of Rs.40,000/- though was assured to be paid by the petitioner. 4. According to the petitioner, on 18.4.2010 his daughter Suvarna informed him that Rajendra (respondent No.2) is ill-treating her and harassing her for the balance of Rs.40,000/-, the dowry amount. On 2.5.2010 at around 2.00 a.m., the complainant received a phone call from anonymous person about Suvarna having been admitted in Medical College Hospital, Aurangabad. Consequently, he reached at Aurangabad and found Suvarna to be dead. He learnt that Suvarna had consumed poison. 5. The petitioner has grievance against the police authorities to be callous and casual in attending the matter. Same is reflected in the application dated 15.5.2010 (Exhibit D – Page 35). It is evident that, the petitioner, a unfortunate father of Suvarna totally crumbled due to the sad demise of his daughter, causing loss for him and consequently, as could be seen, he was making all efforts to ensure that justice is rendered to him in order to book culprits for the unnatural death of his daughter Suvarna. Logic failed to him. He did not expect extreme perversation from police. 4 Cri. Application No.1959/2010 with Cri. Application No.1960/2010 6. The release of the accused/ applicants, after the custody was principally, as their further interrogation was not warranted and nothing was to be recovered from them. It cannot be said that the police machinery having not demonstrated proper efforts facilitated release of the accused/ respondents on bail. No infirmity could be attributed in the order under challenge. 7. The role attributed to the respondents in the application No.1960/2010 being minimal, the learned Judge justifiably entertained the application for pre-arrest bail. He consciously considered role and need of custody of the other distant relatives. The arrangement was till filing charge sheet. It is pertinent, thereafter by application (548/2010) moved by Vasanta, Manda and Shobha, regular bail was sought. Said application was also opposed by petitioner with force and command. However, considering the nature of accusations, application of Vasanta, Manda and Shobha was allowed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the nature of accusations and the severity of punishment in case of conviction, the nature of supporting evidence is lost track of by the 5 Cri. Application No.1959/2010 with Cri. Application No.1960/2010 learned Additional Sessions Judge, the reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses or apprehension to the complainant was also required to be considered. In order to substantiate his contention, reliance is placed in the matter of Sudha Verma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & anr. (2007 DGLS (Sof.) 864). 9. There cannot be a quarrel on the legal proposition as has been enunciated in the above referred judgment and particularly in para 12 thereof. Applying the same to the scale of the present case, it is quite clear, further custodial interrogation of the accused/ respondents herein was not warranted. It may be that police did not venture their duties diligently or acted in slackness and dubious manner, they showed a sort of remorse to the petitioner, however, considering the nature of controversy, further custodial interrogation was not warranted and the learned Judge, therefore, reasonably released the accused/ respondents herein. There is no case that after release the accused have breached any of the terms of the bail. 10. In the result, I do not see any error on the part of the learned Judge. However, considering the nature of accusations of acrimonious relations between the parties, learned Judge seized 6 Cri. Application No.1959/2010 with Cri. Application No.1960/2010 with the Sessions Case No.180/2010 shall ensure its expeditious disposal, up to 31.12.2011. In the event of any grievance from the petitioner of influencing the witnesses, and particularly the complainant, the learned Sessions Judge shall independently deal to curtail the liberty of the accused/ respondents accordingly. 11. Both the applications rejected. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/cri1959.10