Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     Nos.1859-1860     OF     2012   (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 4435-36 of 2012)

PADMAKAR TUKARAM BHAVNAGARE  AND ANR.         …APPELLANTS

Versus

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA  AND ANR. .…RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

(SMT.)     RANJANA     PRAKASH     DESAI,     J.   

1. Leave granted.

Page 2

2. These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the  

order dated 27/03/2012 passed on Criminal Application No.  

15/2012 and order dated 04/05/2012 passed on Criminal  

Application (App.) No. 533/2012 in Criminal Application No.  

15/2012 by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court.  

3. The appellants are original accused 6 and 7 respectively  

(“accused 6 and 7”, for brevity).  Accused-6 is the husband of  

accused-7 and accused-5 is their daughter.   The case of the  

complainant-Ashok Jairam Bhojane (for short “the  

complainant”), as evident from the F.I.R. dated 10/01/2012  

lodged at Police Station, Jaulka,  is that his son Nitin (the  

deceased) was married to accused-5 at Murtizapur in March,  

2011.  The deceased had given an amount of Rs.71,500/- to  

Baban Devlate because Baban Devlate had promised to give  

job to his brother-Vijay.  Baban Devlate had given a cheque of  

Rs.50,000/- to the deceased and told him that if the job is not  

given, he may deposit the cheque and get the money.  As Vijay  

did not get the job as promised, the deceased deposited the  

2

Page 3

cheque in the bank.  The cheque was dishonoured.  Baban  

Devlate, his wife and children refused to give back the  

amount.  The deceased was, therefore, disturbed.  It is further  

stated by the complainant in the complaint that accused-5  

Sadhya-wife of the deceased did not want to stay in the  

matrimonial house.  She wanted the deceased to separate from  

his parents.  Accused 6 and 7 used to threaten him and tell  

him that they would ask their daughter to set herself on fire  

and then lodge a false complaint against him and members of  

his family under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for  

short, “the IPC”).  According to the complainant, on  

31/12/2011 the deceased had gone to Jaulka for duty. No one  

was in the house except his son Vijay.  Accused-5 told him  

that she was unwell and, therefore, she wanted to go to the  

hospital.  She requested Vijay to drop her at her parent’s place  

at Murtizapur.  Accordingly, Vijay dropped her at her parent’s  

place and came back.  On 04/01/2012 the deceased came  

back from his duty.  He found that accused-5 had taken away  

the entire jewellery with her. Due to this the deceased was  

3

Page 4

extremely disturbed.  On 05/01/2012 he left for Jaulka to join  

his duty, however, he did not return. He could not be  

contacted on phone.  Therefore, the complainant went to  

Jaulka Police Station on 08/01/2012.  At the Police Station he  

came to know that at Chala, which is adjacent to Davha  

Nalah, the deceased had hanged himself on a tree after  

consuming poison. According to the complainant the deceased  

had committed suicide because Baban Devlate had not  

returned the amount given to him by the deceased for the  

purpose of securing job for his brother -Vijay and also because  

of the harassment caused to him by the appellants, accused 6  

and 7 respectively and accused-5. Pursuant to the complaint  

Crime No. 3/2012 was registered against accused 5, 6, 7 and  

other accused under Sections 306, 420 read with Section 34 of  

the IPC.  

4. On 12/01/2012 accused 5, 6 and 7 filed an application  

for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal  

Procedure (for short, “the code”) in the court of Additional  

4

Page 5

Sessions Judge, Washim.  Learned Additional Sessions Judge  

granted ad-interim anticipatory bail and made notice  

returnable on 21/01/2012. On 23/01/2012 ad-interim  

anticipatory bail order was confirmed. Being aggrieved by the  

said order, the complainant preferred an application before the  

High Court for cancellation of anticipatory bail.  By the  

impugned order learned Single Judge cancelled the bail order,  

hence, these appeals by special leave.

5. From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that  

learned Single Judge inter alia was of the view that it was  

obligatory on learned Additional Sessions Judge to hear the  

Public Prosecutor before granting bail as per Section 438(2) of  

the Code read with the State amendment.  Learned Single  

Judge was of the opinion that the objections raised by the  

investigating agency were not considered by learned Additional  

Sessions Judge.  In his view, learned Additional Sessions  

Judge did not focus his attention on the fact that the  

complainant was being forced to withdraw the complaint and  

5

Page 6

that he was being threatened by the accused.  He was further  

of the view that since there was an allegation that gold  

ornaments worth Rs.2,50,000/- were stolen by the accused  

and that the investigation as at nascent stage, the custodial  

interrogation of the accused was necessary.  Learned Single  

Judge felt that grant of anticipatory bail was an improper  

exercise of discretion.  In the circumstances, he quashed the  

said anticipatory bail order.   

6. We have heard, at some length, Ms. Anagha S Desai,  

learned counsel appearing for the appellants-accused and  

learned counsel appearing for the State.   Counsel for the  

appellants submitted that the complaint does not specifically  

state that the alleged harassment caused by the appellants  

was the cause of suicide.  The deceased was also stated to be  

disturbed because Baban Devlate had not returned  

Rs.71,500/-.  The allegations that accused-5 had taken away  

gold ornaments, that accused 5, 6 and 7 caused harassment  

to the deceased and that the accused had threatened the  

6

Page 7

deceased are farfetched.  Anticipatory bail once granted ought  

not to have been cancelled in such light manner.  Counsel for  

the State on the other hand supported the impugned order.  

7. At this stage, we do not want to express any final opinion  

on the merits of the case. Truth will surface only when the  

evidence is adduced. Prima facie, however, we find it difficult  

to comprehend why the alleged causes of suicide are not  

stated in one suicide note. So far as accused 5, 6 and 7 are  

concerned contents of the suicide notes prima facie appear to  

be unnatural.  There is no reference to them in the FIR.  

Assuming, the suicide notes to be genuine, we find it prima  

facie difficult  to believe that accused 6 and 7 would threaten  

their son-in-law that they would ask their daughter to set  

herself on fire and then lodge a complaint against him,  

particularly, when admittedly at the relevant time their  

daughter was pregnant.  

7

Page 8

8. In our opinion, reliance placed by learned Single Judge  

on State     Representated     by     the     C.B.I.     v.     Anil     Sharma  1   is  

totally misplaced.   In that case the respondent-accused was a  

former Minister of the State of Himachal Pradesh.  The C.B.I.  

was investigating the F.I.R. lodged against him alleging that he  

had amassed wealth far in excess of his known sources of  

income.  He was alleged to have committed offence under  

Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.  While  

the investigation was in progress, overruling all the objections  

raised by the C.B.I., learned Single Judge of the Himachal  

Pradesh High Court released him on anticipatory bail.  When  

the C.B.I. approached the High Court for cancellation of bail, it  

was submitted that considering the responsible and high office  

which the accused therein held and the wide influence which  

he could wield and the great hardship which the investigating  

agency would be subjected to while interrogating a person  

armed with an order of anticipatory bail, the discretion under  

Section 438 should never have been exercised in his favour.  

In the facts of the case before it this Court accepted this  

1 (1997) 7 SCC 187  

8

Page 9

submission of counsel for the C.B.I. and observed that in such  

a case effective interrogation of a suspected person is of  

tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful  

informations and also materials which would have been  

concealed.  Success in such interrogation would elude if the  

suspected person knows that he is well protected and  

insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is  

interrogated.  It was further observed that very often  

interrogation in such a condition would be reduced to a mere  

ritual.   

9. Facts of that case cannot be compared to the facts of the  

instant case.  The present accused who are aged and rustic  

are not influential persons holding high office who can bring  

pressure on the investigating agency.  It is unlikely that the  

police would find it difficult to interrogate them because they  

are protected by an order granting anticipatory bail to them.  

We are unable to concur with learned Single Judge in the facts  

of this case that it would not be possible to investigate  

9

Page 10

allegation regarding theft of gold ornaments because of the  

anticipatory bail order. Learned Single Judge was, however,  

rightly concerned about the fact that the Public Prosecutor  

was not heard before passing the orders.  We have, therefore,  

heard learned counsel for the State at length.  He has  

vehemently supported the impugned orders but he is unable  

to persuade us to confirm them. No concrete material has  

been produced before us to show that the accused had  

interfered with the course of investigation by threatening the  

complainant and the members of his family.  It is true that  

this Court has held that generally speaking the grounds for  

cancellation of bail broadly are interference or attempt to  

interfere with the due course of justice or abuse of the  

concession granted to the accused in any manner. This Court  

has clarified that these instances are illustrative and bail can  

be cancelled where the order of bail is perverse because it is  

passed ignoring evidence on record or taking into  

consideration irrelevant material. Such vulnerable bail order  

must be quashed in the interest of justice. (See: Dolat     Ram     v.    

10

Page 11

State     of     Haryana  2     &     Dinesh     M.N.     (S.P.)     v.     State     of    

Gujarat  3  ).   No such case, however, was made out to persuade  

learned Single Judge to quash the anticipatory bail order  

passed in favour of accused 6 & 7.  Order granting  

anticipatory bail to them, therefore, deserves to be confirmed.  

We feel that if the conditions imposed by learned Sessions  

Judge are confirmed, it would be possible for the investigating  

agency to interrogate the accused effectively.  

10. In the circumstances, we quash and set aside the  

impugned orders.  Anticipatory bail granted to the appellants-

accused 6 and 7 by learned Additional Sessions Judge by  

order dated 23/01/2012 is hereby confirmed.  The appellants-

accused 6 and 7 shall cooperate with the investigating agency  

and abide by the conditions imposed on them.  Needless to say  

that it will be open to learned Additional Sessions Judge seized  

of the case to vary the conditions if necessary in accordance  

with law.  Needless to say further that all observations made  

by us touching the merits of the case are prima facie  2 (1995) 1 SCC 349 3 (2008) 5 SCC 66

11

Page 12

observations and the trial court shall decide the case without  

being influenced by them.  

11. The appeals are disposed of in the aforestated terms.

………………………………….J. (AFTAB ALAM)

………………………………….J. (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)

NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 26, 2012

12