Oral Judgment :

1. In these applications, notices were issued and affidavits are filed.

2. Hence Rule, which is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent.

3. Both these applications arise out of the same crime.

4. On 9-6-2007, accidental death of Gayatri wife of Omprakash in accidental fire due to cooking gas explosion was recorded on report made by the father of the deceased.

5. It is seen that the spot panchanama, inquest panchanama, zapti panchanama, etc. were punctually drawn.

6. FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased on 11-7-2007 towards apprehended suicidal death of his daughter Gayatri due to torture, on which offence under Sections 498- A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered against five accused.

7. Thereafter present applicant submitted a written report on 15-7- 2007 complaining that the accused were demanding dowry of Rs.1 lac, and that they had given mental and physical torture to deceased Gayatri on account of said demand, and the applicant complained that his daughter was killed by the accused.

8. It is seen from the police papers that no investigation was carried out till written complaint was received from the applicant. The applicants statement was recorded on 15-7-2007 and nothing was done till 23-7-2007.

9. Respondent No.2 Kishanchand, No.3 Shantibai and No.4 Manjusha in Criminal Application No.2894 of 2007 filed Misc. Criminal Application No.518 of 2007 on 12-7-2007 and an order of ad interim anticipatory bail was passed on 13-7-2007.

10. On 13-7-2007, respondent No.2 Harishchandra and No.3 Praveen in Criminal Application No.2875 of 2007 had applied for regular bail bearing Misc. Criminal Application No.519 of 2007 as they were arrested furtherance to report dated 11-7-2007.

This application for bail was opposed by the prosecution. The 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, by his order dated 19-7-2007, had rejected the application.

11. Interim bail granted to the applicants in Application No.518 of 2007 on 13-7-2007 was made absolute by order dated 24-7-2007.

12. The accused, who were arrested (who are respondent Nos.2 and 3 in Criminal Application No.2875 of 2007) whose prayer for bail was rejected in Criminal Application No.519 of 2007 by order dated 19-7-2007 then filed an application for bail, being Misc. Criminal Application No.550 of 2007, on 25-7-2007 and by order dated 27-7-2007, the 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, granted bail and released these applicants on bail.

13. By the present applications, the applicant has moved this Court for cancellation of bail granted to all the accused in above-referred two applications by the 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge.

14. During oral submissions in support of the applications, learned Advocate Shri S.G. Loney appearing with Advocate Shri R.J. Mirza urged in support of cancellation of bail for the reasons and grounds, viz. :

(a) The investigation itself had not taken impetus between 15-7-2007 and 23-7-2007 as the accused are influencial persons.

(b) After the applicant submitted a written complaint on 15-7-2007, as it can be seen from the police papers, except statement of applicant, no statements of five witnesses were recorded till 22-7-2007. During pendency of bail applications, on 23-7-2007 statements of five witnesses were recorded.

(c) The material which was appearing in the case diary in the shape of statements recorded on 23-7-2007 was not considered by the Sessions Judge, while deciding both application though this fact was sought to be placed on record by the prosecution through Exhibits 9 and 10 in Criminal Application No.550 of 2007 of Sessions Court.

(d) The order dated 24-7-2007 passed in Criminal Application No.518 of 2007 contains narrations in paras 1 to 6 and in para 7 it appears that confirmation of bail is in the interest of justice and reasons whatsoever are not recorded in it.

(e) That the order dated 24-7-2007 passed in Criminal Application No.518 of 2007 confirming anticipatory bail is thus passed without application of mind, without considering the material in the case diary, without considering the fact that the police was yet half-way through.

(f) Insofar as grant of bail in Misc. Criminal Application No.519 of 2007 is concerned, it is urged that the calendar of progress of bail applications is worth attention.

(g) The application for regular bail of the accused who were arrested was filed on 13-7-2007 was rejected by the order dated 19-7-2007. Anticipatory bail was granted to other accused by order dated 24-7-2007. Fresh application for bail being Misc. Criminal Application No.550 of 2007 was filed on 25-7-2007 and it was granted on 27-7-2007.

(h) Failure to apply mind and the order being perverse, is writ large from the observation contained in para 7 of the order dated 27-7-2007, which reads that However now the investigation has been completed because the PSO Rajapeth has informed this Court that four statements have been recorded during that investigation., is the finding quoted above factually erroneous as nobody had gone on record accepting the fact that the investigation was completed.

(i) The statements of two more witnesses were recorded on 8-8-2007 and 21-8-02007, that is much after the grant of application for bail, meaning thereby that the observation contained in the order that the investigation was complete and factually erroneous.

(j) The impugned order reveals that grant of application for anticipatory bail to other accused which was passed without reasons has also weighed in the mind of the Court.

(k) The observation that the investigation was now completed and that the earlier application was rejected only on the ground that the investigation was not completed is in fact an improper and erroneous observation, but is the foundation of the order.

(l) The statements of witnesses were recorded by police only on 23-7-2007 and, therefore, it could not be said that the investigation was completed on same day.

(m) The last five lines of the order dated 27-7-2007, namely

Now that obstacle is removed. Therefore there remains no cause or reason to reject the present application on that ground. The accused have settled abode. Furthermore care can be taken that they should not interfere into the investigation. Hence I find it proper to allow this application. Hence the following order. do not constitute sufficient reasons.

(n) That the subject-matter was very serious being a case of bride burning and social evil and, therefore, the Sessions Judge ought not to have been so callous and cryptic.

15. In support of his case for cancellation of bail, the learned Advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Puran v. Rambilas, reported in 2001 Cri.L.J.2566, and of the Apex Court in the case of Satish Jaggi v. State of Chattisgarh, reported in 2007 ALL SCR 1438.

16. The application is opposed by Shri A.S. Mardikar, learned Advocate for the respondents, on the following grounds :

(a) The investigation is already completed and the chargesheet is also filed, and the trial would commence very soon.

(b) The applicants in Criminal Application No.2894 of 2007 are enjoying anticipatory bail since long time.

(c) The applicants in Criminal Application No.2875 of 2007 are also enjoying liberty and they have not misused the liberty and there are no exceptional circumstances entitling the applicant to seek cancellation.

(d) There are no independent witnesses Relying on the judgment in the case of Bhagirathsinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1984 SC 372 [LQ/SC/1983/335] , the learned Advocate for the respondent states that the bail cannot be cancelled on the facts of the case. 17. This Court has scrutinized the chargesheet and its enclosures and has examined rival submissions. Perusal of both orders passed by the 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge even on frantic search do not disclose reasons particularly the order granting anticipatory bail is concerned, is totally without reasons and cryptic.

18. Insofar as grant of bail to remaining accused who were arrested is concerned, the order consists of reasons referred to in points (i), (j) and (m) of para 14 above are totally irrelevant.

19. The accused are not likely to flee from the clutches of law, has to be the last consideration and not main consideration.

20. The observation in impugned order that the investigation was completed, is factually incorrect and therefore the order suffers from the vice of being perverse.

21. The orders granting anticipatory bail as well as regular bail to the accused, therefore, deserve to be quashed and set aside on sole grounds narrated in foregoing paras 17 to 20 in the light of the precedents cited and relied upon, referred to in para 13 above, and grounds urged and noted in para 14 above.

22. Hence, the applications are allowed and by making the Rule absolute impugned orders passed in Criminal Application No.518 and 550 both of 2007 passed on 24th and 27th July, 2007 by 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, are quashed and set aside.

23. In view that the orders are set aside on the ground of want of reasons and want of application of mind and orders being perverse, this order shall not come in the way of accused to apply for bail afresh and such application being considered on its own merits after they surrender.

24. At this stage, the learned Advocate for the respondents/accused prays for time of eight weeks to take recourse to Honble Apex Court against this order. He prays that this order be stayed for a period of eight weeks. Considering that the accused are already enjoying liberty, this order is stayed for a period of six weeks. Certified copy is expedited.