1 CR.APL NO.4952/10 , 2598/2010, 2600/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4952 of 2010 Baliram s/o Gurling Palapure, Age: 56 years, Occu: Service, r/o. Village Tirthwadi, Taluka: Chakur, District: Latur. ...APPLICANT (Orig.Complainant) VERSUS 1. Baburao s/o Shankarrao Patil, Age: 70 years, Occu: Agriculture, r/o Village Rokda Sawargaon, Taluka Ahmadpur, District: Latur. 2. Anupama w/o Baburao Patil, Age: 65 years, Occu: Household, r/o. as above. 3. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Inspector, CIDCO Police Station, CIDCO, Aurangabad, Taluka and District: Aurangabad. ...NON APPLICANTS (Nos.1 and 2 - Orig. Accused) ... Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Adv., for the applicant. Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, APP for State. Mrs. S.S.Jadhav, Adv., for R.Nos. 1 and 2. 2 CR.APL NO.4952/10 , 2598/2010, 2600/2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2598 of 2010 WITH Baliram s/o Gurling Palapure, Age: 56 years, Occu: Service, r/o Village Tirthwadi, Taluka: Chakur, District Latur. ...APPLICANT (Orig.Complainant) VERSUS 1. Dr.Jitendra s/o Baburao Patil (Ghote), Age: 40 years, Occu: Service as Veterinary Doctor at Shirur Anantpal, Taluka Shirur Anantpal, District, Latur, r/o. Adjacent to Sinchan Bhawan, Ausa Road, Latur, Taluka and District: Latur. 2. Kailas alias Kuldip s/o Baburao Patil (Ghote), Age: 38 years, Occu: Service as Teacher with Zilla Parishad, R/o. Village Rokda Sawargaon, Taluka: Ahmadpur, District:Latur. 3. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Inspector, CIDCO Police Station, CIDCO, Aurangabad, Taluka and District: Aurangabad. ...NON APPLICANTS (Nos. 1 and 2 - Orig. Accused Nos. 3 and 4) ... Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Adv., for the applicant. Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, APP for State. Mrs. S.S.Jadhav, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 & 2. ... 3 CR.APL NO.4952/10 , 2598/2010, 2600/2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2600 of 2010 Baliram s/o Gurling Palampure, Age: 56 years, Occu: Service, r/o. Village Tirthwadi, Taluka: Chakur, District: Latur. ...APPLICANT (Orig.Complainant) VERSUS 1. Dr.Sunil s/o Dhanraj Patil, Age: 34 years, Occu: Medical Practitioners, r/o. Shivraj Colony, Aurangabad, Taluka and District Aurangabad. 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Inspector, CIDCO Police Station, CIDCO, Aurangabad, Taluka and District: Aurangabad. ...NON APPLICANTS (No.1 Original Accused No.6) ... Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Adv., for the applicant. Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, APP for State. Mr.H.F.Pawar, Adv., R.1. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 21/3/2011 *** PER COURT : 1. By present applications, the applicant/original complainant seeks setting aside order passed by learned Additional Sessions 4 CR.APL NO.4952/10 , 2598/2010, 2600/2010 Judge, Aurangabad, releasing the respondents ( accused) in Crime No.I-180/2010 dt.10.5.2010, registered with CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad, for the offenses under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The applicant is father of Dr.Suchita, who was married to Dr.Nitin Patil on 3rd June, 2005. 2. Application No.4952/2010 relates to cancellation of bail to parents of Dr.Nitin, namely, Baburao and Anupama. Application No. 2598/2010, relates to Dr.Jitendra and Kailas @ Kuldip, brothers of Dr.Nitin. Application No. 2600/2010, relates to cancellation of anticipatory bail and then regular bail to Dr.Sunil Patil, a friend of Dr.Nitin Patil. 3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, while allowing application of Jitendra and Kuldip in Bail Petition No.70/2010, had, in fact, rejected the bail application of Baburao and Sau.Anupama, parents of Nitin on 22.6.2010, however, he has directed release of parents by subsequent order dt.1.11.2010, applying principle of parity and changed circumstances. 4. Shri Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the complainant submits, grant of bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, applying principle of 5 CR.APL NO.4952/10 , 2598/2010, 2600/2010 parity, was improper and vitiated by serious infirmity and, consequently, it would be proper for this Court in the interest of justice to interfere. By reading paragraphs from extracts of diary of Suchita, Counsel argues, she suffered humiliation, deprivation in her life at the hands of her in laws or brother-in-law. Dr.Sunil Patil is basically responsible, as he caused a threat perception with false communication. Dr.Sunil made Dr.Suchita to consider family's future well being including of Parth (her son) and ensured that she makes an incorrect dying declaration exculpating the accused and giving a shadow to the events as accidental death against the odds at the site. He reiterated, had Dr. Sunil would have refrained himself from making incorrect statement/representation to Dr. Suchita, the entire scenario of the matter would have been quite different to portray real situation. Dr. Suchita had suffered at the hands of her in-laws, and her husband. It was to screen the offender from legal punishment and ensure that the evidence disappear and the culprits go scot free. 6. Smt. Jadhav, Shri Pawar, learned Counsel for the respective respondents, submit that the release of respondent on bail was in tune with release on bail of Dr.Nitin Patil by this Court 6 CR.APL NO.4952/10 , 2598/2010, 2600/2010 in Application No.4082/2010 dt.28/10/2010. Even S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court moved by the present complainant/applicant has been dismissed. This fact is not informed to this Court by the complainant. There is no infraction in recording attendance. Whatever money was demanded by Dr. Nitin through Dr. Suchita was for construction of the hospital and the brothers have nothing to do with Hospital construction activities. The sale deed dt.2.9.2008 in respect of immoveable property is in the name of Dr. Nitin and complainant's son Suhas. At the material time, even if parents of Nitin had been to the residence but that does not mean that they have caused illtreatment to Dr. Suchita. She submits, there should not be punitive detention simply because Dr. Suchita has committed suicide. Mr. Pawar says, there is no reference of Dr. Sunil in the dying declaration, chargesheet is filed after the anticipatory bail, Dr. Sunil has been released on regular bail on 30.8.2010, and even subsequent to chargesheet, there is no infringement of conditions. 7. This Court (Coram: P.V.Hardas, J.), while entertaining Criminal Application No. 4082/2010 of Dr.Nitin, observed, 7 CR.APL NO.4952/10 , 2598/2010, 2600/2010 " The investigation has been completed and chargesheet has been filed in the month of August, 2010. ... ... In the first two dying declarations of Dr. Suchita recorded on 2.5.2010, at 1.30 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. by the Police Constable and the Executive Magistrate, respectively, the deceased is alleged to have sustained burns accidentally. In the third dying declaration recorded on the same day at 5.00 p.m. the deceased alleges that she was ill-treated and a demand for dowry was made and that drove her to commit suicide." It was also observed in paragraph no.6 as under: " Since the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed, I see no impediment whatsoever in allowing this application and granting bail to the applicant. The apprehension of the prosecution that the applicant would tamper the prosecution evidence or would influence the prosecution witnesses can be allayed by putting the applicant to certain terms." 8. It was based on the above order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge entertained subsequent bail applications of parents of Dr.Nitin. The dying declarations do refer, rather implicate, parents with their role. 9. If diary entries of Dr.Suchita are not entertained by the Additional Sessions Judge, that, by itself would not be a jolt to the stand of prosecution. It will be a part of 8 CR.APL NO.4952/10 , 2598/2010, 2600/2010 appreciation during evidence, in juxtaposition to dying declarations. 10. Mr.Deshmukh, learned Counsel, seeking cancellation, placed reliance to the judgment of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Etc. Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav ( 2005 (0) AIR (SC) 921). The Apex Court has observed, " The decision given by superior forum, is binding on the subordinate fora on the same issue even in bail matters unless of course, there is a material change in the fact situation calling for a different view being taken". The Apex Court further observed, " The findings of a higher Court or a coordinate Bench must receive serious consideration at the hands of the Court entertaining a bail application at a later stage when the same had been rejected earlier. In such an event the Courts must give due weight to the grounds which weighed with the former or higher Court in rejecting the bail application. Ordinarily, the issues which had been canvassed earlier would not be permitted to be re-agitated on the same grounds, as the same would lead to a speculation and uncertainty in the administration of justice and may lead to forum hunting". 9 CR.APL NO.4952/10 , 2598/2010, 2600/2010 11. In the matter of Bhuvaneshwar Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and others ( 2008 DGLS Soft 1365: 2008 (15) SCC 467). The Apex Court dealt with principles governing grant of bail, nature of accusations and severity of punishment in case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. Any order de hors such reasons suffers from non application of mind. 12. The sorry state of affairs in the life of Dr.Suchita, project a very gloomy picture as to the conduct of her husband and in-laws. The greed of her husband, forcing to let go reins of common sense has prima facie taken toll of Dr. Suchita. Though credibility to the conduct of these persons is wanting, however, that, by itself, would not be mitigating the directions to release on bail, in tune with orders of this Court. The role to the parents or the brother- in-law would not be more aggravated, grave than Dr.Nitin. Death of Dr.Suchita certainly crumbled her father. He was jittery, logic failed for him, however, with all sympathies, no fault can be attributed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge subsequently towing to the orders of this Court dt.28.10.2010 and releasing the 10 CR.APL NO.4952/10 , 2598/2010, 2600/2010 parents of Dr.Nitin. The two brothers of Dr.Nitin primarily does not seem to be residing at Aurangabad, they are gainfully employed and settled at Latur. The dying declaration virtually inculpates them. 13. The powers for cancellation of bail in the matter of bride burning has received approval by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Puran Vs. Ram Vilas ( AIR 2001 SC 2023(1) ), however, since release of Dr.Nitin on bail has been confirmed upto Apex Court, it could be hazardous and judicial indiscipline too to apply different yardstick to accept grievance of the trembled father, to put the respondent in fetters. 14. Generally, grounds for cancellation of bail revolve to evading due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to a suspect in the matter. Nothing to suggest the accused has interfered in the course of investigation, or attempted to tamper evidence or breached attendance schedule. 15. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in paragraph nos. 10 and 12 of his order under Bail Petition No.1510/2010, recorded the change in material circumstance on account of bail to Dr.Nitin Patil by this Court. He found that 11 CR.APL NO.4952/10 , 2598/2010, 2600/2010 the case of applicant/accused (Baburao) is not different and expressed his satisfaction that case of Baburao and another is not distinguishable from case of accused Dr.Nitin Patil. There could not be a string of doubt as was projected during submissions in merits of the said application. There is no propensity leading to illegality in the order of Additional Sessions Judge. 16. So far as Dr. Sunil is concerned, even if he has embroidered the situation while interacting with Dr.Suchita, however, in her subsequent dying declaration, she seldom refers him to be an Architect for her making earlier two incorrect dying declarations. She informs, that her two dying declarations ( Dt:2nd May, 2010, at 1.30 a.m. and 11.30 a.m.) were based on her not keeping well but, in the third dying declaration on the same day, she does not castigate Dr. Sunil to be instrumental in moulding her mindset to avoid to depict and portray the real picture. This adds, as a feather, for Dr.Sunil - inspte of there being statement of his colleague Dr. Rajendra Dhanwai, of Dr.Nitin asking Dr. Suchita to develop a theory of burns. 17. The orders in bail application No. 1510/2010 are recorded by the learned Judge in 12 CR.APL NO.4952/10 , 2598/2010, 2600/2010 Diwali Vacation but that does not mean it should be looked with a raised eye brows as the matter was taken up for hearing, by consent. 18. Survey of the events illustrate, grant of bail to the respondents does not deserve to be interfered with. The respective applications dismissed. Observations are prima facie in nature. Considering the peculiar facts of the present case, nature of evidence, the learned Sessions Judge shall ensure expeditious disposal of the case within a year of communication. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/4952-10craplgr