IMPORTANT POINT
In this case bail granted by Sessions Judge has been cancelled by High Court for very valid and cogent reasons. Thus appeal against High Court s order has no substance and is liable to be dismissed.

JUDGMENT

S.N. Variava, J.-Leave granted.

2. Heard parties.

3. These two appeals are against an order dated 24th January, 2001, by which the High Court has cancelled bail, which had been granted to the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, by his order dated 13th November, 2000.

4. Briefly the facts are as follows:

The Petitioner got married to one Puja Agrawal on 24th November, 1999. On 2nd of September, 2000 i.e. within a year of the marriage the said Puja Agrawal met with her death on 2nd of September, 2000. The Petitioner has been charged with offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Along with the Petitioner three other ladies had also been charged. Those ladies were granted bail by an Order dated 11th September, 2000. A Petition challenging that Order has been rejected on 20th October, 2000.

5. The evidence prima facie suggests the following: at the time of the marriage there was a demand of dowry for Rs. 5 lacs including Rs. 2 lacs in cash; that the father of the deceased has spent Rs. 7 lacs on marriage; that about a month prior to the death of the said Puja a demand of Rs. 1 lac was made; that the father of the said Puja had offered Kisan vikas patra worth Rs.30,000/- to the Petitioner, which had been refused; that whenever the deceased came to the parents home she was not wearing any ornaments; that even at the time of her death she was not wearing any ornaments not even her "Mangalsutra." The deceased was eight months pregnant at the time of her death. From the scene of offence, two handkerchiefs, two small cotton balls and one bigger cotton ball were found. Pieces of broken bangles were found. The wire of telephone was found broken. The telephone was found on the bed. There were electric burn injuries over the left index finger, middle finger, thumb, palms and back of palms upto base. Bone of left index finger was exposed and charred. Base of left index finger was swollen, distal part of left index finger was bluish in colour, surrounded by reddish area. There were electric burn injuries over right supramammary region oval shaped 7 cm x 4 1/2 cm. Centre of the burnt area was blackened and hard measuring 5 cm. x 3 1/2 cm. Blisters were found present over lateral aspect of left thigh, upper 1/3rd, 5 cm. x 1 1/2 cm. and 2 cm. Anterior to this injury, as also over lateral aspect of right thigh, upper 1/3rd Besides this, abrasions were found on the right side of back, over infra scapulas region.

6. We have heard the parties. Mr. Lalit has argued this Appeal at great length, we have given anxious consideration to his submissions but for reasons set out hereafter are unable to accept them.

7. Mr. Lalit submitted that one of the reasons why the High Court set aside bail was that the Additional Sessions Judge had not referred to any material circumstance on record and had not given any reasons. He submitted that the High Court was wrong in so observing. He submitted that the same Additional Sessions Judge had earlier granted bail to the ladies by his Order dated 11th September; 2000. He pointed out that, whilst so granting bail, the Additional Sessions Judge had given very cogent reasons. He submitted that against that Order a Petition had been filed in the High Court. He submitted that even though the High Court rejected the Petition, the High Court observed as follows :

"I agree with the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant that while granting bail the learned Judge ought not to have ventured to discuss the merits or demerits of the evidence collected against the accused persons. Probably he was not aware or he was not remined of the advice given by the Apex Court in the case of Niranjan Singh & another vs. Prabbakar Rajaram Kharote and Others reported in AIR 1980 S.C. 785 wherein detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case while passing orders on bail application was deprecated."

7. He submitted that in view