1 crap3576.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3576 OF 2011 1 Sonyabai s/o Ashok Saindane, age 23 years, occ. agril., r/o Deoli, Taluka Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon, 2 Suvarna s/o Laxman Thakre, age 27 years, occ. agril., r/o Aurala, Tq. Kannad, District Aurangabad ...Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri Nirav G.Shah, advocate for applicants Smt. R.K.Ladda, A.P.P. for respondent Shri V.R. Langhe, advocate for original complainant. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 9 th September, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Perused the investigation papers which were made 2 crap3576.11 available for inspection purpose as well as heard learned counsel for the parties finally. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant nos. 1 and 2 seeking regular bail, in connection with C.R. No. I-28 of 2011, registered at Deogaon Rangari police station, District Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 498- A, 304-B, 306, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 It appears that the offence has been registered on the basis of complaint lodged by Subhash Tukaram Khajine i.e. father of the victim Varsha on 14.7.2011. It is alleged in the said complaint that victim Varsha married with Pradip about 5-6 years back and applicant nos. 1 and 2 who are sisters-in-law of the victim and other co-accused used to subject victim to physical and mental cruelty on domestic flimsy grounds, and therefore, victim Varsha was fed up with the said illtreatment, and hence, she consumed poisonous substance on 14.7.2011 and committed suicide. It is also alleged that accused and co- accused abetted and instigated the committal of the suicide by victim Varsha due to physical and mental illtreatment meted out 3 crap3576.11 to her. 4 Admittedly, applicant no. 1, namely Sonyabai is a married sister-in-law, but resides at her matrimonial home i.e. Deoli, Taluka Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon and although applicant no.2, namely Suvarna is also married sister-in-law, it is submitted that she does not reside with her husband, but resides in the same village i.e. Aurala, Taluka Kannad, District Aurangabad, but separately. 5 On perusal of the contents of the complaint, it appears that although the names of applicant nos. 1 and 2 have been reflected in the first information report, no specific role has been attributed to them, except the allegation against applicant no.1 Sonyabai that she used to visit her parental house intermittently and used to harass victim Varsha; whereas there are no specific allegations against applicant no.2 Suvarna. 6 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor asserted that the statements of the witnesses, namely Santosh Shinde and Vinayak Shinde were recorded during the course of 4 crap3576.11 investigation, which reflect that the applicants herein illtreated the victim Varsha. 7 I have perused the said statements and after perusal thereof, it appears that there are general and omnibus allegations against the applicants, but no specific instances of alleged illtreatment have been quoted therein. 8 Apart from that, it is canvassed that the complaint was lodged with Mahila Takrar Niwaran Kendra by victim Varsha and a compromise deed was executed between victim Varsha and her husband Pradip, wherein husband Pradip on behalf of his relatives undertook that the victim Varsha would not be subjected to illtreatment. 9 On perusal of the said compromise deed, it appears that it was executed between victim Varsha and her husband Pradip and there are about 9 signatures of the witnesses thereon, but signature of none of the applicants appears thereon as witness to the said compromise deed. 5 crap3576.11 10 It is further canvassed that postmortem notes disclose that the victim Varsha sustained injuries. I have perused the said postmortem report, but it discloses that opinion regarding cause of death has been reserved and viscera was preserved for chemical analysis, and apparently, there is no nexus between the external injuries on the body of the victim and the alleged illtreatment meted out by the applicants to her. 11 Besides, it is submitted that the brother-in-law of the victim, namely Bapu @ Vasant Laxman Shejwal has been released on bail by the learned Sessions Court on 7.9.2011, as well as mother-in-law, namely Meenabai also has been released on bail by the learned Sessions Court on 8.9.2011. 12 Moreover, it is also submitted that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. 13 Having the survey of the totality of the facts and circumstances and the evidence, there is no propriety in keeping the applicants in custody further more, and hence, they 6 crap3576.11 are entitled to be released on bail. 14 In the result, present application is allowed and it is directed that applicant no. 1 Sonyabai Ashok Saindane and applicant no. 2 Suvarna Laxman Thakre be released on bail in connection with C.R. No. I-28 of 2011, registered at Deogaon Rangari police station, District Aurangabad, on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- by each, with one surety in the like amount by each of them, on the condition that applicant nos. 1 and 2 shall not influence upon the witnesses or tamper with the evidence, in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly. 15 The present application stands disposed of finally. 16 It is made clear that the above observations are prima facie in nature and shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/crap3576.11