STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SANTOSH HIRAMAN URANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag, on 26th July, 2004 in respect of offence punishable under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian penal Code registered with Panvel Town Police station being C. R. No. 234/2004. The respondents have been named as accused responsible for the death of Pradeep Dattatraya bhoskar. The Respondents are closely related to the deceased. Respondent No. 4 is the wife of the deceased and Respondent No. 2 is the sister of Respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 3 is the mother of Respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 1 is the husband of Respondent no. 2 (brother-in-law of Respondent No. 4). The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:i) That one Ashalata Dattatraya Bhoskar (Complainant) of Panvel has two sons by names Pradeep and Dinesh. Smt. Ashalata is staying with her son Dinesh and his wife sonal. As Pradeep got married to respondent No. 4 Smt. Swati, they were staying separately at Disha Co-operative society, Plot No. 59-62, B Wing, 3rd Floor, room No. 302, New Panvel. Pradeep and swati have a daughter by name Smruti. ii) There were some differences of opinion between the deceased Pradeep and Swati (Respondent No. 4) on the point as to in which school Smruti should be admitted for her education. That on 16-05-2004, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 went to the house of deceased Pradeep and took Respondent no. 4 and Miss Smruti with them. On the same day it was proposed to hold a meeting regarding admission of Smruti in the school. iii) That the Complainant; Smt. Ashalata with her son Pradeep (deceased) went to attend the said meeting which took place at 8. 00 p. m. in the house of Respondent No. 1. Said meeting was attended on behalf of respondent No. 4 by her sister the respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 3, and others. After Pradeep and his mother went to the house of Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 closed the doors and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 started abusing the deceased Pradeep and his mother i. e. the complainant. Respondent No. l started beating Pradeep. Complainant intervened and told the Respondent No. l not to beat pradeep as Pradeep was operated six months back on his backbone. iv) That as soon as the complainant told the respondents as aforesaid the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 rushed towards the complainant ashalata. The Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 started abusing the complainant Ashalata in the name of her married daughter Manisha jadhav. It was said that they would bring manisha to Panvel and compel her to work as prostitute. There was no discussion regarding the admission of Smruti and the complainant and Pradeep came back to their house. Thereafter, it is alleged that respondent No. 4 wrote a letter amongst other demanding that the house situated at sector No. 9 of New Panvel should be transferred in her name. Besides, the respondent No. 4 asked her husband (Pradeep) to assure that no other family member except him should visit their house. v) That on 10-06-2004 deceased Pradeep received a phone call from Respondent No. 4 wherein the Respondent No. 4 told Pradeep that she would not come back to his house even her feet are touched by any person from his family and further Respondent no. 4 abused Pradeep and suggested him to go and die. vi) That on 11-06-2004, it was found that pradeep has committed suicide by hanging himself to the ceiling fan in his flat. The writing of Pradeep which was found in the said flat discloses that the Respondents are rich persons and the Respondent No. lisa goonda by nature and even if complaint is made to the police no purpose would be served. That the said chit was seized from the scene of offence. That the said suicide note was a carbon copy and the original writing till date could not be recovered and the Investigating Agency is suspecting that the said writing is with the Respondents. The mother of deceased Pradeep lodged complaint with the police on 13th June, 2004, which is registered as C. R. No. 234/2004. Immediately on the next day, the Respondents moved the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail. The Sessions Court granted interim protection to the Respondents on 14th June, 2004. The application has been finally disposed of on 26th july, 2004.

(2.) The Sessions Court in its order mainly took the view that custodial interrogation of the Respondents was not necessary as relevant material, which would indicate complicity of the Respondents was already seized by the Police. He further observed that there are no criminal antecedents against the respondents. Moreover, they are permanent residents of New Panvel. Lastly, the learned judge observed that insofar as the apprehension of the prosecution regarding the Respondents tampering the prosecution evidence is concerned, that can be taken care of by imposing strict conditions. These are the only reasons which have weighed with the learned judge to pass the following order, which is impugned in this application. "the order of interim anticipatory bail granted on 14-06-2004 is hereby confirmed. The Applicants are directed to report to panvel Town Police Station twice in a week i. e. on every Monday and Thursday between 11. 00 a. m. to 2. 00 p. m. till charge-sheet is filed. The applicants are directed not to make any inducement, threats or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. "

(3.) The present application for cancellation of bail has been filed by the State on 7th January, 2005. In the first place, it is asserted that the basis on which the lower Court proceeded to grant anticipatory bail to the respondents, having regard to the seriousness of the offence and material to indicate the complicity of the Respondents, cannot be sustained. In other words, the order passed by the lower Court is challenged on merits. In addition, it is asserted that the Respondents have violated the conditions on which anticipatory bail was granted in their favour. Neither they have reported to the concerned police station at any point of time after the order was passed, though that was one of the conditions, nor have they abided by the condition to dissuade the prosecution witnesses from giving evidence. Specific instance has been mentioned in the application and letter addressed by the respondent No. l to one Ramchandra Balu urankar has been placed on record. It is the case of the prosecution that Respondent No. 1 is a politically influential person in the area and taking advantage of that position, he is trying to influence the prosecution witnesses. After notice of this application was served on the respondents, it is now stated on affidavit on behalf of the State that thereafter the respondents have tried to further influence the prosecution witnesses. In fact, about 7 false complaints have been registered against the prosecution witnesses. Besides, in the reply, which has been filed by the Respondents before this Court, false accusation has been made against the police officers, which fact has not only been denied in the rejoinder filed by the state, but the relevant circumstances are also explained in the affidavit. On the above basis, it is urged that the order of anticipatory bail granted in favour of the Respondents ought to be cancelled.