926 appln 587-16 + 2.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 587 OF 2016

Aadesh Eknath Surve ..Applicant

v/s.

Rakesh Chandrakant Shelke Ors. ..Respondents

WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 447 OF 2016

Aadesh Eknath Surve ..Applicant

v/s.

Sou. Pournima Amar Shelke Ors. ..Respondents

WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 448 OF 2016

Aadesh Eknath Surve ..Applicant

v/s.

Chandrakant J. Shelke Ors. ..Respondents

Mr. Avinash N. Naikwadi for the Applicant.
Mr. A.D.kamkhedkar, APP for the State.

CORAM : ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,J.

DATED : OCTOBER 19, 2018.

pps 1 of 5

::: Uploaded on – 26/10/2018 26/10/2018 23:02:55 :::
926 appln 587-16 + 2.doc

P.C.

1. The respondent no.1 in Criminal Application No. 587 of 2016

and Respondent nos.1 and 2 in Criminal Application Nos. 447 of

2016 and 448 of 2016 had filed applications under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C. before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Baramati, Pune

apprehending their arrest in Crime No. 313 of 2016 for offences

under Section 306, 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC. The

learned Addl. Sessions Judge had allowed the said applications by

orders dated 18th June, 2016 in Criminal Anticipatory Bail

Application Nos. 352 of 2016, 282 of 2016 and 281 of 2016.

2. By this application filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., the

applicant, who was the first informant, has sought cancellation of

bail granted vide orders dated 18th June, 2016.

3. Heard Shri Naikwadi, the learned Counsel for the applicant and

the learned APP for the State. I have perused the records and

considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the

respective parties.

pps 2 of 5

::: Uploaded on – 26/10/2018 26/10/2018 23:02:55 :::
926 appln 587-16 + 2.doc

4. The records prima facie reveal that Respondent no.1-Rakesh

Shelke (Criminal Application No. 587 of 2016) had married Rani -the

sister of the first informant/ applicant herein on 24th February, 2014.

She had committed suicide on 27th May, 2016. The brother of the

deceased had lodged a complaint stating that Rakesh Shelke used to

consume alcohol and ill-treat the deceased. He has further stated

that all other family members of said Rakesh Shelke had demanded

Rs.5 lakhs for purchase of a four wheeler and that they used to

subject deceased to cruelty since they were unable to satisfy their

demands. He therefore claims that applicant Rakesh and his family

members had abetted commission of crime.

5. The learned Sessions Judge, whilst granting bail in

ABA/281/2016 has considered the fact that the respondent nos.1 and

2 in Criminal application no. 448 of 2016 are above 70 years of age.

The learned Judge has also observed that the nature of the

allegations do not justify custodial interrogation.

pps 3 of 5

::: Uploaded on – 26/10/2018 26/10/2018 23:02:55 :::
926 appln 587-16 + 2.doc

6. The applicant- first informant has sought cancellation of bail

mainly on the ground that the learned Judge has not considered the

material on record and has recorded erroneous findings. It may be

mentioned that parameters of cancellation of bail are totally different

from those to be considered whilst granting bail. Bail once granted,

cannot be mechanically canceled unless there are supervening

circumstances which warrant cancellation of bail, and /or the order is

totally perverse and based on irrelevant material.

7. The first information report indicates that the deceased -Rani

had committed suicide within two years of marriage. It is true that

in terms of Section 113-A, presumption can be drawn. However, the

FIR reveals that the allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty are

made against each and every member of the family. Furthermore,

the allegations are general in nature. The material on record does not

indicate that the applicant Rakesh or his family members had

provoked, instigated, goaded, enticed or intentionally aided the

deceased in committing suicide. Thus, there is no prima facie

material to show that the said respondents have abetted commission

pps 4 of 5

::: Uploaded on – 26/10/2018 26/10/2018 23:02:55 :::
926 appln 587-16 + 2.doc

of suicide within the meaning of Section 107 of IPC. The records

reveal that bail was granted in the year 2016. It is stated that the

chargesheet has been filed. There is nothing on record to show that

the respondents have violated the conditions of the bail order.

There are no supervening circumstances to cancel the bail. The

order is no perverse and is not based on irrelevant material.

8. In my considered view, no case is made out for cancellation of

bail. Hence the applications are dismissed.

                                              (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)  
pps                                                                                     5 of 5
          ::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2018     26/10/2018 23:02:55 :::