Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD
T.V. NALAWADE, J.
Pramod – Appellant
Versus
Savita & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Application Nos. 905 of 2014 & 906 of 2014
Decided on: 02-02-2015
Criminal Procedure Code - Bail - Sections 439, 306 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a request for cancellation of temporary bail and bail granted under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in favor of the respondents who were accused of having illicit relations with the deceased's wife, leading to the deceased's suicide. The Sessions Court initially granted anticipatory bail to the respondents, which was challenged by the present applicant. The Hon'ble Apex Court extended the protection for a specific period, allowing the respondents to approach the concerned court for regular bail. The respondents then moved for interim regular bail, which was granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed force in the submissions made by the counsel for the accused and granted bail, considering factors such as the accused attending the police station, no misuse of liberty, the nature of the offense not punishable with life imprisonment, and the denial of illicit relations by the accused. The court also noted the serious nature of the offense, the possibility of tampering with prosecution witnesses, and the impact of the orders on the society.
Issues: The issues included the grant of bail in a case involving serious allegations, the misuse of interim relief, and the impact of such orders on the justice delivery system and investigation process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the discretion to grant bail or anticipatory bail is circumscribed by statutory provisions and should not interfere with the statutory powers of the police to arrest and investigate cognizable offenses. It highlighted the duty of the courts to uphold moral values and the need to consider custodial interrogation as more effective in certain cases.
Final Decision: The court rejected the applications, stating that the respondents were not entitled to the protection granted by the Sessions Court, and emphasized the need for the judiciary to avoid granting further protection when higher courts have already provided a specific period for approaching for bail.
1. Both the applications are filed under sections 439 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' for short) for setting aside the orders made of interim nature and the final orders in Criminal Application Nos. 206/2013 and 203/2013 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. The prayer is made for cancellation of temporary bail and bail granted under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in favour of both the respondents No. 1 from the two proceedings. During argument, submission was made that after granting relief by Sessions Court, the chargesheet came to be filed against both the respondents No. 1 from both the proceedings for offence punishable under sections 306 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short). Both the sides are heard. The leaned APP supported the applications which are filed by the original complainant.
2. The deceased was brother of present applicant. There are allegations that respondent No. 1 of the second proceeding had illicit relations with the wife of the deceased, respondent No. 1 of the first proceeding. When the deceased and his relatives realized about unchaste behaviour of the wife of deceased, the deceased questioned his wife about it. There are allegations that respondent No. 1 from the second proceeding then gave threat of life to the deceased. The respondent No. 1 was thinking that deceased was coming in the way of respondent No. 1 in keeping relations with the wife of deceased. It is contended that the wife of the deceased had admitted that she had kept such relations. The deceased then committed suicide by hanging himself in a room from a lodge. He has left behind a suicide note in which he has disclosed the aforesaid circumstances and he has contended that the respondents are responsible for his suicide. He has requested for taking action against them.
3. To both the wife of the deceased and other respondent, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had initially granted relief of anticipatory bail. The said orders were challenged in Criminal Application Nos. 4231/2013 and 4232/2013 by present applicant in the proceedings filed under section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. By the order dated 25.11.2013, this Court had allowed those applications and the orders of anticipatory bail were set aside and the relief was cancelled. In the petition filed for Special Leave to file Appeal (Cri.) viz. 9925/2013 and 9931/2013, the Hon'ble Apex Court made the following order:-
"Taken on board.
Heard Ms. Bina Madhavan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Shankar Chillarge, learned counsel along with Mr. Anirudh Mayee, learned Advocate-on-Record who accepted notice on our instructions.
These are not the cases where this court should interfere with for grant of anticipatory bail. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the petitioners in both these cases have been given protection for a particular period, we extend the same for two more weeks i.e. upto 23rd December 2013. In the meanwhile, petitioners may approach the concerned court for regular bail. Till then no coercive steps shall be taken against them.
With these observations, the special leave petitions stand disposed of."
The aforesaid order was made by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 5.12.2013.
4. When the time of 18 days i.e. up to 23.12.2013 was given by the Hon'ble Apex Court to respondents to move Sessions Court for getting regular bail, the applications were moved by both the respondents under sections 439 of Cr.P.C. on 17.12.2013. On 17.12.2013 itself these respondents prayed for interim regular bail. The learned APP requested for time. Prosecutor wanted to take instruction to file say. On the first day i.e. on 17.12.2013 itself, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed order of interim nature. He has mentioned that no say was filed by APP, there was no possibility of abscondance of the accused and there was the direction of the Apex Court to surrender and to apply for regular bail. By making such observations,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
