2012appln1909.10.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1909 OF 2010. Dinesh Tooyya Badhel ..vs.. State of Mah. through P.S.O. P.S.Washim. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr.R.S.Kurekar, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.P.V.Bhoyar, APP for the State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. DATED : 20 th December, 2010. Heard Mr.Kurekar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Bhoyar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. By the present application, the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail. Mr.Kurekar submits that the applicant is the father in-law of victim Arti. Learned counsel further submits that a vague statement is made in the report lodged by mother of Arti alleging that the applicant and other relatives were ill treating victim Arti for demand of dowry and motor cycle. Mr.Kurekar further submits that though it is stated in the report that victim Arti committed suicide, the Investigating Agency on no material is arrived at a conclusion that victim Arti was murdered. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is agricultural labourer and he is ready to abide by any condition imposed upon him byu this court if he is released by this court. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has strongly opposed the application. Reply is filed by the 2012appln1909.10.odt 2 State. Learned APP made available the material collected by the Investigating Agency for my perusal. The material collected by the Investigating Agency show that there are injury marks observed in the post-mortem report and Mr.A.P.P. further submitted that the suicide, as stated in the report, was the opinion of the mother of victim Arti but in view of the injuries observed in the post-mortem report, the Investigating Agency is of the opinion that victim Arti was subjected to certain bodily injuries. The material including statement of one Geetabai – a neighbourer, reveals that whenever victim Arti used to visit her parental home, she used to tell about the ill-treatment, demand of dowry and demand of motor cycle at the hands of her matrimonial relations. It is specifically stated that the husband, father in-law, mother in- law Gangabai and the applicant were ill-treating victim Arti and there was a demand of dowry and motor cycle. The record also reveals that the applicant is residing along with Karan Badhel – father in-law and Ganbabai Badhel – mother in-law of the victim. In view of the material as referred above against the applicant, I am of the opinion that this is not the fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE chute