CHANDRASHEKAR RANGARAO DESHMUKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for cancellation of bail.

(2.) RELEVANT facts stated in nutshell are that sister of applicant married Respondent No. 2 on20-1-2002. She was nicely treated for two-and-half year. Subsequently there was demand for dowry. Rupees 4 lakhs were demanded for setting up a Petrol Pump. Since complainant could not make payment of this amount, ill-treatment of deceased Sheetal continued till she expired on2-11-2005. On 4-11-2005, applicant Dr. Chandrashekar lodged report, on the basis of which offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 read with Section34 of the Indian Penal Code and u/ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, was registered at Bhokardan Police Station. During the course of investigation Respondents 2 to 4 filed an application for bail. The application was allowed by learned 4th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna by his order dated10-11-2005. The applicant impugns this order on the ground that, (i) filing of the affidavits of neighbours would show that witnesses were tampered with; and, (ii) though the deceased was cremated without giving any intimation to the applicant and her relatives, their statements were not considered by learned trial Judge. According to applicant release of Respondents 2 to 4 on bail, would have an adverse effect on the investigation, therefore, order releasing Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on bail deserves to be cancelled.

(3.) PER contra, Shri. Shinde, learned counsel for Respondents 2 to 4 has referred to the affidavits of neighbours. According to him, not only intimation was given to the complainant and other relatives, but all of them had attended the funeral and had insisted that the body should not be disfigured by subjecting it to the post-mortem. In view of the request of applicant and others, body of the deceased was not sent for post-mortem. Applicant and his relatives stayed at the house of Mandodari Jadhav. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant has filed false affidavit regarding threats given by Respondent No. 3 with ulterior motive. Respondent No. 3 or any person connected with the Respondents have not threatened the applicant. Applicant has purposefully made false allegation against Respondent No.3. According to learned counsel, learned Sessions Judge has considered all the aspects properly before passing impugned order releasing the applicant on bail. No ground for cancellation of bail has been made out, therefore, application deserves to be rejected.