1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2642 OF 2010 1. Gorakh S/o.Sahebrao Gite, Age-60 years, Occu-Agriculturist, 2. Jaibai W/o.Gorakh Gite, Age-50 years, Occu-Agriculturist, All R/o.Gitewadi, Tq.Patoda, Dist. Beed APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.N.L.Jadhav, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.P.P.More, learned APP for State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 16/07/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have approached this Court for their release on bail in connection with CR No. 54/2010, registered in Patoda Police Station of Dist. Beed for the alleged offence punishable u/s.498-A, 302, 201 r/w. 34 of IPC, in which these applicants came to be arrested on 21/05/2010. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned APP for State. Perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 2 3. The present applicants are parents in law of deceased, and grand parents of the deceased minor girl of deceased Rupali. Admittedly, the marriage of Balu and deceased Rupali was solemnized about 4 years back. It appears from the complaint that there was dispute between the husband of deceased and herself on the count of some illegal demands. The husband of deceased Balu was working as a truck driver at Bombay for some months, and in the remaining period of year, he used to stay at his native place. The alleged incident took place somewhere in between 16/05/2010 to 21/05/2010. Prior to the incident alleged, deceased alongwith her husband and daughter had been to the parental home of deceased to take the dinner on the occasion of 'dhondejevan' at Saradwadi. At that time, the husband of deceased Rupali informed the complainant that he is not ready to maintain Rupali, as he dislikes her and assaulted deceased Rupali at her parental home itself. On 17/05/2010, he demanded money from the complainant, which was paid by the complainant at Jamkhed. At that time, the complainant inquired about the deceased as she was missing since the afternoon of 16/05/2010. Dead bodies of Rupali and her minor daughter were found in one valley near Sautada Rameshwar Temple, which were identified by the complainant as the dead bodies of her daughter and grand daughter. Then the present complaint was lodged against these applicants and their son Balu, the husband of deceased. 4. Considering the submissions across the bar as well as the papers of investigation which clearly discloses that the case rests on 3 the circumstantial evidence. Inquest panchnama as well as the post mortem report shows that the death of the victims is homicidal death as even though the dead bodies of Rupali and her minor daughter were found in de-composed position, but there are signs of burn injuries on their bodies. The fact remains that immediately thereafter, these applicants came to be arrested alongwith their son on 21/05/2010. To connect these applicants with the death of those 2 victims, the prosecution rests on circumstances. Statement of witness one Changdeo Gite and his wife discloses that on 16/05/2010, they saw deceased and her minor daughter, who were proceeding towards one dispensary, that itself will not amount to accept that the deceased were in the company of these applicants at the time of occurrence of the incident. So far as the allegations in the complaint are concerned, it do not constitute that there was any illegal demand of money at the hands of these applicants from deceased Rupali or her parents. The only allegation against these applicants is that they used to harass the deceased on the count that she was not able to do the household work properly as well as require lot of food. These grounds can not be termed as harassment on the count of illegal demand from the deceased or from the parents of deceased Rupali. Even though the investigation is still in progress, the statement of the neighbourers of the applicants were already recorded. Thus so far as the investigation in respect of the role played by these applicants is concerned, it is practically over. In the premise, considering that the applicants are in jail for considerable period, case is made out to enlarge them on bail. It is made clear 4 that the observations in this order are in respect of these two applicants only and not to be used as parity for the application, if moved by Balu, the husband of deceased Rupali. Accordingly the order - O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicants be released on bail on their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each and on executing PR bonds in the like amount. 3. After released on bail, applicants not to leave the local jurisdiction of Patoda Police Station without previous permission in writing from the Investigation Officer concerned. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JULY 2010/cri.appl.2642-10