2005 (3) TMI 818 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Judge.
2. Compliance with conditions of anticipatory bail.
3. Influence on prosecution witnesses by the respondents.
4. Merits of the anticipatory bail order.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Judge:
The application sought the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Judge, Raigad, Alibag, on 26th July 2004, in respect of an offense punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents were accused of being responsible for the death of Pradeep Dattatraya Bhoskar. The High Court found that the Sessions Judge's decision was primarily based on the view that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as the relevant material indicating the respondents' complicity had already been seized. However, the High Court held that this reason alone could not justify the grant of anticipatory bail, especially considering the seriousness of the offense and the nascent stage of the investigation.

2. Compliance with conditions of anticipatory bail:
The State asserted that the respondents violated the conditions of the anticipatory bail by not reporting to the police station and by attempting to influence prosecution witnesses. The respondents contended that they had been regularly visiting the police station but were unaware of the need to maintain a diary for their visits. The High Court rejected this excuse, stating that the respondents' failure to report to the police station, as required by the bail order, was sufficient ground for the cancellation of anticipatory bail. The court emphasized that the obligation to attend the police station was independent of the condition requiring release upon arrest.

3. Influence on prosecution witnesses by the respondents:
The prosecution alleged that the respondents had attempted to influence prosecution witnesses, supported by a letter from Respondent No. 1 to Ramchandra Balu Urankar and the lodging of seven false complaints against prosecution witnesses. The High Court found substance in these allegations, noting that the respondents had tried to pressurize witnesses even after the application for cancellation of bail was filed. The court dismissed the respondents' claims of political rivalry and false accusations against police officers as attempts to confuse the matter and seek sympathy.

4. Merits of the anticipatory bail order:
The High Court held that the Sessions Judge's order could not be sustained on merits. The seriousness of the offense, the material indicating the respondents' complicity, and the need for custodial interrogation were overlooked. The court noted that the deceased's suicide note and diary described the pressure and threats from the respondents, particularly Respondent No. 1, who had a history of involvement in a murder case. The court concluded that the lower court failed to consider the gravity of the offense and the potential for the respondents to tamper with evidence, given Respondent No. 1's influential background.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents by the Sessions Judge was unjustified and unsustainable. The respondents' non-compliance with bail conditions and attempts to influence witnesses further warranted the cancellation of bail. The application for cancellation of bail was thus allowed, and the anticipatory bail order was set aside with directions for the police to proceed against the respondents in accordance with the law.