1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1006 OF 2010 Vijay Jagannath Kale ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Girish Rane, Advocate for applicant Mrs. Vaishali More, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 22nd March, 2010. ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant, seeking anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest under C.R. No.58/2010, registered at Amalner Police Station, District Jalgaon, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that, the complaint has been registered on the report lodged by one Dipak Kale on 2.3.2010, alleging that his brother Kamlakar Kale committed suicide on 28.2.2010 since the applicant herein teased him that the victim could not do anything to the applicant herein although his wife Jagruti committed suicide on 28.12.2009 The 2 contents of the F.I.R. disclose that Jagruti i.e. wife of the victim herein namely Kamlakar committed suicide on 28.12.2009 in her residential house by pouring kerosene on her person and set herself ablaze. The said F.I.R. also discloses that Jagruti has given statement before her death wherein finger has been raised against the applicant herein that he had one-sided love against her and thereby she got defamed. The said F.I.R. further discloses that the applicant herein was released on bail and thereafter he used to tease the victim namely Kamlakar that he could not do anything in spite of suicide committed by his wife namely Jagruti, as well as the applicant herein used to stare at Kamlakar criminally and thereby he was mentally tortured and, therefore, he committed suicide. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that there is nothing in the F.I.R. to show that the applicant herein aided and abetted to the commission of suicide committed by victim Kamlakar and, therefore, present application is required to be allowed. According to learned counsel for the applicant, nothing is to be recovered from the applicant and there is absolutely no necessity of custodial interrogation of the applicant and, therefore also present application is required to be allowed. 5. The learned A.P.P. opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the deceased has given two dying declarations i.e. first declaration was recorded during the intervening night between 27.12.2009 and 28.12.2009 at about 1.00 a.m. to 1.35 a.m. by P.I. Amalner and the second dying declaration was recorded at about 3 4.35 a.m. on 28.12.2009 by Executive Magistrate and the deceased Kamlakar has raised finger against the applicant in the first dying declaration whereas the second dying declaration categorically involves the applicant in the crime. The learned A.P.P. also submitted that the dying declaration given by Jagruti also discloses that the applicant had one-sided love against her and thereby she was defamed. According to the learned A.P.P., a complaint was lodged by the victim against the applicant on 9.1.2010 i.e. prior to occurrence of the incident as well as one C.R. No.162/2009 also has been registered against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 427, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, lodged by one Vikas Patil and same is pending. The learned A.P.P. further pointed out that, during the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses have been recorded and statement given by Dipali i.e. wife of complainant discloses that the applicant has given threats to the complainant and his family. Hence, apprehension is posed that if the present application is allowed, the further investigation would be interrupted and, therefore, the learned A.P.P. urged that the present application be dismissed. 6. On perusal of the investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions advanced by both the learned respective counsel, at the outset, the dying declaration of Jagruti makes reference against the applicant herein, stating that the applicant had one-sided love against her and therefore, she was defamed. Moreover, the first dying declaration of victim Kamlakar recorded on 28.2.2010 also re-iterates the contents of dying declaration of Jagruti and reflects that the applicant had one-sided 4 love upon his wife Jagruti and further the said dying declaration states that he used to give trouble to her and thereby she committed suicide. The said dying declaration also discloses that the applicant herein used to stare at the deceased Kamlakar enmically whenever he used to cross and even once the applicant apologised before deceased Kamlakar for the act committed by him towards his wife namely Jagruti. The second dying declaration of the victim recorded by Executive Magistrate on 28.2.2010 at about 4.35 a.m. implicitly involves the applicant in the crime and discloses that the victim Kamlakar committed suicide due to mental torture given to him by the applicnat herein. 7. Besides, the other aspect that the statement of Dipali i.e. wife of the complainant cannot be ignored wherein she stated that the applicant gave threats to the complainant and his family. 8. Having the comprehensive view of the matter and considering the nature and gravity of the offence and its seriousness, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the applicant is essential and, therefore, present application deserves to be dismissed. 9. In the result, present application being sans merits, stands dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) fmp/cri100410