JUDGMENT:- This is an application for regular bail. Applicants have been named as accused in Crime No.I-362/08 registered with Sangamner police station for offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A. 323, 504. 506 of I.P.C., and Sections 3 & 4 for Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The version as found in the F.I.R. can be summarised as follows: a) Complainant's daughter Sujata was married to the accused no.4 Rajendra. b) Dowry of Rs.42,000/- in cash was paid. c) Rajendra started demanding amount of Rs.2 lakhs and on that he ill-treated Sujata by giving physical assaults. d) Accused no.3 threatened Sujata of murder. e) There was no improvement inspite of adequate caution. f) Sujata was even required to be admitted in the hospital because of assault and beating by the accused by crowbar, resulting in injury on her leg. g) Considering the delicacy of relations, she did not complain to the parents or to the police. h) The accused again threatened Sujata on a demand of Rs.2 lakhs if she wants to stay in the bungalow with the accused and drove her to commit suicide, which she did, and died due to drowning in the well. 3. The accused persons were arrested by police and they were granted bail by Sessions Court, Sangamner in Criminal Misc. Application No.190/08 by order dated 11/12/2008. 4. The said order of release on bail passed on 11/12/2008 was challenged in this Court by complainant, by filing Criminal Application No.335/2009. 5. This Court heard the said Criminal Application No.335/09 and decided it by order dated 20/312009. This Court found, as is seen in paragraph no.11 at page 24 of the judgment as follows: "11………….. …………….. Coming to the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner by which bail was granted to the respondents-accused, one thing is clear that the concerned Judge has not taken into consideration statements of various witnesses recorded by the investigating officer while granting bail. There is also no reference to the fact that marriage took place in the month of May, 2002 and death occurred within 7 years from the marriage. There is no reference to the certificate issued by Dr. Tambe hospital. There is also no reference to the fact that marriage took place in the month of May, 2002 and death occurred within 7 years from the marriage. There is no reference to the certificate issued by Dr. Tambe hospital. The Additional Sessions Judge who granted bail has not taken into consideration entire allegations in the complaint in the light of statements of various persons recorded by the J.O. The Additional Sessions Judge has given cryptic reasons while granting bail in para 6 of the order which reads thus: "6. I have considered rival submissions in the light of police papers. It is the case of the prosecution that death of Sujata was suicidal. There is no specific allegation of dowry related demand having been made soon before death of Sujata. As per P.M. report, two injuries found on the body of Sujata were post-mortem. It appears that no complaint of ill-treatment was made by Sujata or her relatives before the incident, dated 1.12.2008. Offence are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Investigation has progressed considerably. There are no cogent grounds to deny bail." On the above mentioned reasoning in para 6 the Judge granted bail to the respondents-accused. The incident in question took place on 1.12.2008. The bail application was entertained by the Judge and bail was granted to the respondents-accused on 11.12.2008. In view of the various pronouncements of the Apex Court as stated in foregoing paras. the Judge should have taken into consideration the gravity and nature of offence into consideration. The Judge has also not taken seriousness of the offence into consideration. On perusal of the reasons given by the Judge it appears that the Judge has granted bail observing that there is no specific allegations of dowry related demand having been made soon before death of Sujata. The Judge should have taken into consideration contents of the complaint in detail in the light of statements of the witnesses recorded by the I.O. and then only should have commented on demand of dowry. The learned Judge has cursorily referred to the injury certificate, post-mortem report and mentioned that two injuries found on the body of Sujata were post-mortem. The Judge has further observed that no complaint of ill-treatment was made by Sujata or her relatives before the incident and, therefore, application for bail deserves favourable consideration. The learned Judge has cursorily referred to the injury certificate, post-mortem report and mentioned that two injuries found on the body of Sujata were post-mortem. The Judge has further observed that no complaint of ill-treatment was made by Sujata or her relatives before the incident and, therefore, application for bail deserves favourable consideration. Such reasoning on the fact of the contents of the complaint is no sustainable. The complainant has disclosed in the complaint that with the hope and expectation that things would improve and marital life of the daughter Sujata should not get disturbed on account of filing criminal complaint, the complainant restrained himself in not lodging any complaint in the police station." 6. After making observations noted above, this Court, observed that the approach of the learned Sessions Judge was inappropriate, as the evidence collected by police leading to inculpatory circumstances was not properly considered. 7. This Court, however, without expressing any opinion on merit, set aside the order and permitted the applicant to move bail application afresh after surrender. 8. Applicants have accordingly surrendered and have furnished application for bail, which was heard and decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangamner, who has rejected the same. 9. In this background, present application for bail has been filed before this Court. 10. The learned A.P.P. has tendered for perusal of Court copy of set of documents including charge-sheet and accompaniments thereof. 11. Heard learned Advocate Mr. S. T. Shelke for applicants and learned A.P.P. Shri. N. N. Jadhav and perused the charge-sheet etc. produced by learned A.P.P. 12. It is seen that on the point of ill-treatment, cruelty etc. i.e. pertaining to the commission of offence as alleged against the accused, statements of 11 witnesses are recorded, which are apart from the witnesses of inquest, other panchanamas and other documents collected by the police. These 11 witnesses are viz. 1) Nana Kisan Shahane (nephew of A-I); 2) Sakhubai Rohidas Pokharkar (mother of Sujata); 3) Ganesh Rohidas Pokharkar (brother of Sujata); 4) Ganga Yashwant Dighe (maternal aunt of Sujata); 5) Bhausaheb Kashinath Dighe (maternal cousin uncle of Sujata); 6) Somnath Ramnath Jadhav (maternal cousin brother of Sujata); 7) Bhausaheb Krushna Pokharkar (cousin uncle of Sujata) 8) Kaushik Gangadhar Jadhav (uncle of Sujata); 9) Sanjay Sitaram Pokharkar (uncle of Sujata); 10) Nana Maruti More (relative of Supta); 11) Shivnath Sakharam Jadhav (neighbour of Sujata). 13. 13. Perused the statements of all these 11 witnesses and supplimentary statement. Perused record relating to the admission of Sujata in the hospital of Dr. Tambe, and notes of autopsy. 14. It is seen from statements of all 11 witnesses that their version is almost replica of one another on the points as follows: i) Marriage. ii) Dowry at the time of marriage. iii) Assault and threat of murder. iv) Incident which had occurred in April, 2008, when it is alleged that Sujata was assaulted with crowbar. v) Admission of Sujata that she was tortured or ill-treated on the ground that she should bring amount of Rs.2 lakhs if she wants to stay in the bungalow. vi) She has committed suicide being driven due to ill-treatment. 15. The record relating to Dr. Tambe has been secured by police and it is found in the investigation papers. The injury referred to therein reads as follows: "C.L.W. - irregular - right thigh 3'x 2'x 2' and that the patient was discharged against medical advice on the same date. The record further mentioned that the injury was simple and was caused by hard and blunt weapon. It is signed by Dr. Raj Mhaske." 16. It seems that nothing serious must have been reported to the treating and attending staff of Dr. Tambe's hospital, else those would have made a Medico Legal Report to the police. 17. It has gone totally unexplained as to in what circumstance, Sujata got discharge from Dr. Tambe's hospital against medical advice. 18. It is pertinent to note that though the charge-sheet contains copy of bed head card/case paper of Sujata's admission to Dr. Tambe's hospital, it is not seen that the statement of Dr. Tambe or the statement of attending doctor whose name is seen as Dr. Raj Mhaske or of any other para medical local attendant was recorded. It is not explained as to why the police did not record statements of those doctors and staff of the hospital, to whom Sujata could or may have confided or if recorded, why copies thereof are not made a part of the charge-sheet. 19. What is shocking and amazing is that the allegation of assaulting Sujata sometime in April, is said to be by use of crowbar. However, the injury recorded in Dr. Tambe hospital is simple. 20. 19. What is shocking and amazing is that the allegation of assaulting Sujata sometime in April, is said to be by use of crowbar. However, the injury recorded in Dr. Tambe hospital is simple. 20. It is seen that no independent witnesses are brought forward in the investigation by the police to support the story of ill-treatment. 21. It is pertinent to note that statements of all II witnesses are prototype and almost replica of one another. The circumstance which would clinch is that Sujata was tortured or ill-treated over the issue of demand of Rs.2 Lakhs, if she desires to stay in the bungalow. These facts are mentioned by witnesses without detailed narration as to prior or later incidence, the date of incident, the manner in which the incident was communicated to the parent's relatives by Sujata etc. All these essential facts are kept ambigious and undisclosed. No details whatsoever are narrated and thereby the Courts and all concerned are left to speculate the facts and the truth. 22. It is also seen that the police have not made enquiries to explore the evidence regarding the: (a) life style, (b) as to who are the neighbours, (c) whether the cohabitation of Sujata was peaceful or traumatic according to the neighbours and whether neighbours or servants and all those who had occasion to witness these matters and whether all these type of persons had any suspicion etc. about the behaviour of family members of the accused. 23. It is seen from statements of 11 witnesses that they are residents of place other than the place of residence of accused persons. They are mostly related to the complainants family. It is not shown or indicated as to how each amongst these witnesses came to know what they have narrated. 24. Though while opposing the bail, it is alleged that there is apprehension that the accused may influence or tamper the witnesses. it is clear that long time between December. 2008 to April/May, 2009, the accused were at large and any complaint about tampering of evidence for pressurising witnesses has not been disclosed. 25. It is not shown by the prosecution as to how witnesses are likely to be influenced by the accused. This allegation is of an easy resort. 26. What further shocks this Court at this stage is that in the post-mortem examination. 25. It is not shown by the prosecution as to how witnesses are likely to be influenced by the accused. This allegation is of an easy resort. 26. What further shocks this Court at this stage is that in the post-mortem examination. injuries on the person of Sujata are shown to be post-mortem and not ante-mortem, as is seen in column No.18 of postmortem notes which read as follows: "18. Other injuries discovered by external examination or palpation as fractures etc. No a) Can you say definitely that the injuries shown against serial Nos.17 & 18 are antemortem injuries? .. P.M. INJURIES." 27. The prosecution has not collected any evidence as to the facts and circumstances in existence immediately prior to the incident of suicide. The statements of witnesses are prototype repeating or reiterating of contents of F.I.R. and do not disclose any circumstances in immediate proximity of the incident of suicide. 28. In the light of forgoing observations and discussion, this Court is satisfied that applicants have made out a case for release on bail. The same however, can be on conditions . 29. This Court therefore, allows this application as hereinafter. 30. The applicants be released on bail on furnishing Personal bond and solvent surety in the sum of Rs.25.000/- each. They shall not in any manner contact or otherwise influence the witnesses and shall extend necessary cooperation for expeditious disposal of the trial.