1 appln51.52.11.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 51/2011 State of Maharashtra thr. PSO PS Washim ..vs.. Baban Sopan Khirade With Criminal Application No. 52/2011 State of Maharashtra thr. PSO PS Washim ..vs.. Sanjay Pundlik Pathe and ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for applicants. Mr. R. S. Kurekar, Advocate for non applicant in Cr. Appln. No. 51/2011 Mr. A. P. Tathod, Advocate for non applicants in Cr. Appln. No. 52/2011 CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATED : DECEMBER 19, 2011. 1. These applications are under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the non applicants in both the applications by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim. Hence, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The incident occurred on 14.05.2011. Complainant Dr. Angad, has a cousin by name Nitin-the deceased. Nitin died suicidal death on 14.05.2011 by consuming poison. Dr. Angad informed the police about death of his cousin Nitin. On that basis accidental death case, bearing No. 30/2011 was registered with Police Station, Washim. For the period of two months nothing happened. 2 appln51.52.11.odt 3. On 18.07.2011, the said Angad lodged FIR alleging that on the next day of the incident, Baban Khirade, Head Constable and the applicant in Criminal Application No. 51/2011 had informed him that some chit was found on the person of the deceased and when he read it, it was regarding threats given by Raghunath, Gajanan, Nirakar and Sanjay, applicant nos. 1 to 4 in Criminal Application No. 52/2011. In the chit it was written that they are dangerous persons and they had threatened the deceased and the reason for such a threat was that they had received less amount of insurance policy and, therefore, they would eliminate him (the deceased). According to the complainant, it was also mentioned in the chit that these four persons had instigated the deceased to die. As regards Baban Khirade, it was alleged that he destroyed these chits and thus caused disappearance of the evidence. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while granting anticipatory bail to Baban Khairade in Misc. Criminal Application No. 305/2011, it is observed as under: “As far as role attributed to applicant as per detail in report dated 18.7.2011 is that applicant who was making necessary inquiry in A.D. No. 30/2011 had destroyed the valuable evidence i.e. suicide note said to have written by deceased. It cannot be out of place to note that while preparing inquest on corpse any 3 appln51.52.11.odt such note were not found. It is further material to note that complainant himself who is a qualified person in the medical profession has first lodged report on 14.5.2011 in it he had not leveled suspicion on any body and thereafter after more than two months he is leveling allegations on the applicant as stated above. Therefore, it is doubtful to consider the alleged act of applicant. Needless to mention further that the witnesses examined in this case are also not suggesting involvement of applicant. Hence considering the material on record, I find that in order to protect the liberty of applicant he is entitled for pre arrest bail.” 5. While granting anticipatory bail in Misc. Criminal Application No. 304/2011, the learned Sessions Judge observed as follows: “As far as present applicants are concerned, there are allegations in report dated 18.7.2011 of the complainant that they had abetted commission of suicide by deceased. At the same time, it cannot be brushed aside that same complainant had lodged report on the same day of committing suicide by deceased i.e. 14.5.2011, at that time he had leveled any suspicion regarding suicide of deceased on any body. It is further material to note that in inquest and spot panchanama there is no mention of finding any chit with deceased. Therefore considering this aspect as well as the conduct of the complainant, I do not find that there are any circumstances to show involvement of applicants. Apart from it considering the nature of offence it is difficult to find that applicants are required for any custodial interrogation.” 6. The broad factors like inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, no suspicion was raised when the deceased died suicidal death, the averments 4 appln51.52.11.odt in the FIR prima facie appearing artificial, appear to have weighed with learned Additional Sessions Judge in allowing their applications for prearrest bail and rightly so. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the question of cancellation of bail of the applicants does not arise. The applications are, therefore, rejected. JUDGE kahale