1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1463 OF 2010 Bababai w/o Pralhad Yewale ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri B.R. Kedar, Advocate for applicant Shri D.V. Tele, A.P.P. for respondent, assisted by Shri Rahul Awasarmol, Advocate for original complainant as per order passed in Criminal Application No.1651/2010 ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 27th April, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. B.R. Kedar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as heard Mr. D.V. Tele, learned A.P.P. assisted by Mr. Rahul Awasarmol, learned counsel for original complainant. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant, seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending her arrest under C.R. No.49/2010, registered at Ambad Police Station, District Jalna for the offences 2 punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 323, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. It appears that, the offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant namely Narayan Bhaurao Kolte on 11.3.2010 i.e. father of victim Anita. It is alleged that, the marriage of deceased Anita was solemnized with son of the applicant namely Digambar on 6.5.2007 and applicant herein is mother-in-law of victim Anita. It is also alleged that, the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was settled as dowry amount at the time of marriage and out of the said amount, the amount of Rs.75,000/- was paid as part payment towards dowry at the time of marriage and balance amount of Rs.75,000/- was to be paid after one year from the marriage. The said complaint also recites that, initially the victim Anita was treated well at her matrimonial home for about 1 ½ year, however, thereafter the applicant and other co-accused persons started demanding the balance amount of Rs.75,000/- of the agreed dowry amount from her for the purchase of land. However, due to non payment of the said balance amount of dowry, the victim Anita was subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment by the applicant and other co-accused persons. Meanwhile, victim Anita delivered the son, but the ill-treatment and mental and physical torture at the 3 hands of the applicant as well as co-accused to the victim Anita was continued. The said complaint further discloses that, the deceased Anita was subjected to cruelty by the applicant and other co-accused persons due to non payment of the balance amount of the dowry amount. It is also stated in the said complaint that, soon before the incident i.e. on 18.2.2010, the deceased Anita made grievance against the applicant and other co-accused persons to her father in respect of ill-treatment given by the applicant and other- co-accused persons due to non payment of the balance amount of dowry, and ultimately, on 9.3.2010, the husband of the applicant informed the complainant that deceased Anita was found dead in water reservoir of the village. 4. On the aforesaid background, the learned counsel for the applicant canvassed that the applicant is mother-in-law of victim Anita and she has been residing separately along with her husband from the said victim and her husband Digambar. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the complaint itself recites that victim Anita was treated well by the in-laws at her matrimonial home for the initial period of 1 ½ years and the marriage took place on 6.5.2007 and, therefore, considering the date of marriage and considering the initial period of good treatment of 1 ½ year, there is almost no period left for ill-treatment 4 before the date of incident. It is also urged that, the complaint has been lodged after the delay of 52 hours. Besides that, it is submitted that the custody of child of victim is with the applicant and, therefore, the said aspect be considered. Moreover, it is also submitted that, husband of the applicant namely Pralhad has been already enlarged on bail and his case and the case of the applicant is required to be considered on equal footing. 5. The learned A.P.P. opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that, the contents of the complaint reflect the name of the applicant as one of the culprits and the specific role and overt act has been attributed to the applicant in the alleged commission of offence. It is also submitted that the statements of the witnesses have been recorded during the course of investigation, which also connects the applicant to the alleged crime. It is further pointed out that, the spot panchanama discloses the water reservoir of 5 ft. having water therein of about 2 ½ ft. and the post mortem report discloses the cause of death of victim as cardio respiratory arrest secondary to asphyxia due to drowning and considering the depth of the water reservoir and the cause of death, the death of victim appears to be suspicious. It is further submitted that, investigation is under progress and, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the further 5 progress in investigation. Hence, it is submitted that, present application bears no substance and same be rejected. 6. On perusal of investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent from the contents of the complaint that there are specific allegations against the applicant in respect of demand of balance amount of dowry as well as there are specific allegations of ill-treatment at the hands of applicant to the victim Anita due to non payment of balance amount of dowry. Accordingly, the contents of F.I.R. disclose that the specific role has been attributed to the applicant in the alleged commission of the offence and overt act on the part of the applicant has been disclosed therein in the commission of the offence. Hence, it is further apparent that, there is no possibility of false implication of the applicant in the alleged offence. 7. Besides that, considering the depth of the water reservoir in the spot panchanama and also considering the cause of death disclosed in the post mortem report as aforesaid, it appears that, the death of the victim Anita is suspicious. Moreover, considering the date of marriage i.e. 6.5.2007 and considering the date of death of the victim i.e. within a span of three years, 6 presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act can be very well raised. Hence, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the further progress of the investigation in proper perspective and in constructive manner. 8. In the circumstances, present application deserves to be rejected and, therefore, same stands dismissed. 9. Needless to say that the above observations are prima facie in nature and shall not come in way of any Court while deciding the matter on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE fmp/cri165410