{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3100 OF 2009 Yakubkhan Yusufkhan Pathan APPLICANT VERSUS State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for the State Mr.L.V.Sangit, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 8 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 20th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, original complainant in CR No.58/2009 registered with Pachora Police station, has approached this Court for cancellation of the bail granted by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in favour of the respondents No.2 to 8 in bail applications No.647/2009, 648/2009 and 753/2009. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents and learned APP. {2} 3. Though the learned APP attempted to support the contentions of the applicant, yet the State has not challenged the order of grant of bail to the respondents. 4. Considering the submissions across the bar, it is clear that this application is moved by the original compliant not on the ground that after release on bail the accused have misused the same, however the same is moved on the ground that the evidence collected during the investigation was not properly considered by the court below while granting bail to the accused persons. It is tried to urge that the death of the victim, who was daughter of the complainant, was occurred within a period of 7 years from the marriage and hence the offence is squarly covered u/s 304-B of the Criminal Procedure Code and would not fall within the ambit of section 306 of the IPC. It is to be noted that before the lower court the complainant had participated and had filed his written notes of arguments. In the said written notes of arguments, the date of marriage though actually is 24th April 2002, yet it was wrongly mentioned as 25th April 2002. Considering the date as when the incident occurred and the date which is mentioned in the written notes of arguments, the incident did not occur within a span of 7 years of marriage. In fact it is error on the part of complainant for which the learned trial judge cannot be blamed. Apart from it, at the time of hearing of the bail applications, sections for which the accused are facing the proposed trial cannot be considered {3} however it can be considered at the time of framing of the charge, if required. In the premise, it appears that compliant and the disclosure of facts and other evidence is considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while allowing the bail applications. 5. Considering the submissions and perusal of the orders passed in bail petitions preferred by the accused show that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has given reasons, however, so far as bail petition No.647/2009 is concerned, a cryptic order is passed which cannot be said to be a reasoned order. At the same time, while considering the said order what are the allegations against the accused are also to be taken into consideration. From the disclosure of facts in the complaint and the statements of the witnesses recorded at the first instance, the allegations about the alleged demand, time, place and particulars are vague and if these particulars are vague then this court do not think that for the cryptic order the same may be recalled. In the premise there is no necessity to interfere in the order passed in the bail petitions of the accused. 6. In the result. The application, which is sans merits, stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3100-09