1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3631 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.517 OF 2009. 1. Venunath S/o Shankar Hase, Age 42 years, Occ.Agri., 2. Tarabai W/o Shankar Hase, Age 65 years, Occ.Nil. 3. Vimal W/o Venunath Hase, Age 35 years, Occ.Household, All R/o Chikhali, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 4. Hirabai W/o Babasaheb Kanwade, Age 38 years, Occ.Household, R/o Nimgaon-Paga, Tq. Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar. ... Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent. ... Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, advocate for the applicants. Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.P.P. for the State. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 16.10.2009. 2 PER COURT 1. This is an application for bail. 2. The applicants are original accused Nos.2 to 5. Out of them, applicant No.1 Venunath, has been convicted for offence U/s 306 of the I.P.Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five (5) years, whereas the other three women accused are sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for term of three (3) years. The applicant No.1 - Venunath is the younger brother of original accused No.l Somnath. The five (5) accused were tried before the learned Sessions Judge for offences punishable U/ss 498- A, 323, 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.Code. The deceased wife of original accused No.l Somnath, allegedly, committed suicide on 24.7.2006, as a result of unbearable torture caused to her on account of her non fulfillment of unlawful demand for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand). 3. Having heard learned counsel and the learned A.P.P. and on going through the relevant 3 observations of the learned Sessions Judge, it prima facie appears that the original accused No.l i.e. husband of the deceased was attributed the main role. He used to beat her. There were four (4) injuries found on her person as shown in column No.17 of the postmortem notes (Exh.50). Thus, it can be gathered that there is some material to implicate the original accused No.l. However, the present applicants have been convicted for the reason that they were residing together with the accused No.l and shared common intention with him. It is pertinent to notice that the marriage of original accused No.l Somnath and deceased Suman was performed in 1985. Out of the wedlock, three (3) children were born. It is obvious that for long many years she resided with the family members of her husband. The demand was for required amount needed for purchasing a truck vehicle. So far as the present applicants are concerned, the applicants Nos.2 to 4 have been awarded short term sentences. They were on bail during the course of trial. So also, the applicant No.1 was on bail during the trial. The judgment under appeal 4 does not specifically show that the appellant No. 1 had demanded the amount for purchasing of the truck. The evidence on record indicated that truck vehicle bearing No.MH 17 A 5001 was purchased in the year 2006, in the name of original accused No.1 Somnath, about two (2) weeks prior to the incident. Under the circumstances, the applicant No.1 also deserves liberty. The appeal is likely to be heard after a considerable period. The role of applicant No. 1 - Venunath, is not very much clear from the impugned judgment and, therefore, he may not be deprived of liberty. 4. For the reasons stated above, the application is allowed. The applicants are directed to be released on bail if they would furnish bail bonds in sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) each, along with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the Court of Sessions. The applicants also undertake to remain present personally at the time of final hearing of the appeal. 5 5. Hamdast allowed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crapp363109