1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5624 OF 2010 Shri Haribhau K. Varpe ...Applicant. v. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents. Mr.S.V.Kotwal i/by Ganesh M. Mohite,advs. For the Applicant. Ms P.P.Shinde, APP For the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JANUARY 12, 2011. P.C. 1 Applicant is in custody in Crime No.59 of 2010 registered at Nandgaon police station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 309 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP. Perused the police papers filed alongwith the charge-sheet. 2 The applicant, who is accused no.1, was married to one Aruna and out of this wedlock, two daughters were born. Aruna appears to have left the house of husband and is said to be living with some other person. Both the daughters were living with the applicant. It appears that applicant also married accused no.2 Usha. Thus, in his house, the applicant, his second wife and two daughters from the first wife were living. On 5.7.2010 the applicant was taken to the hospital as he had 2 consumed some unknown poison. His daughter Roshani aged about 4 years, was found lying dead in their house. Near the body a bottle smelling of some poison was lying. Inquest panchanama revealed that there were strangulation marks around the neck of the girl. P.M. Report reveals that though there was some smell from the viscera, there were marks of strangulation around the neck and it was death because of asphyxia due to strangulation. 3 Case is based on the circumstantial evidence. Four years old daughter of the accused was found dead and prima-facie it appears that she was murdered by strangulation. It is possible that before strangulation some poison might have been administered to her but as the viscera does not appear to have been referred to C.A., nothing can be said positively about the poison. The fact remains that at the same time the present applicant was taken to the hospital as poisoning case and he was given treatment. Circumstances prima-facie indicate towards the present applicant as culprit. His second wife Usha was granted bail because she happens to be young lady aged about 21 years. Merely because bail was granted to her, the present applicant cannot be treated with parity. In view of the circumstances, if the bail is granted to the present applicant, there is every possibility that he may tamper the 3 prosecution evidence. 4g Therefore, application stands rejected. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)