1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1137 OF 2010 Sushil s/o Bhaurao Mahajan & ors. ... APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Mrs. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicants Shri K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for the respondents ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 9th April, 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard Mrs. S.S. Jadhav, learned counsel for the applicants as well as heard Mr. K.S. Patil, learned A.P.P. for the respondents. 2. This is an application preferred by applicant Nos.1 to 6 seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest under C.R. No. 48/2010, registered at Dhule City Police Station, District Dhule, for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 323, 324, 504, 506(2), 149, 201 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 3. The applicant No.1 Sushil is the husband of victim Smita, applicant No.2 is father-in-law, applicant No.3 is mother-in- law, applicant No.4 is brother-in-law, applicant No.5 is uncle of applicant No.1 Sushil and applicant No.6 is married sister-in-law of the victim Smita. The marriage between applicant No.1 Sushil and deceased Smita took place on 11.5.2006 and thereafter Smita went to her matrimonial home at Surat for co-habitation along with applicant No.1 Sushil. The said couple was blessed with a child namely Nityam on 15.10.2007. However, Smita expired on 25.10.2008 i.e. within short span of almost 2 ½ years after the marriage. After the death of Smita, a private complaint came to be lodged before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule on 10.12.2008. However, said learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule returned the said complaint for presentation to proper Court in accordance with Section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by order dated 12/3/2009. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the complainant Dipak Manikrao Ahirrao (Mali) i.e. brother of deceased Smita preferred Criminal Revision Application No.68/2009 and same came to be allowed by order dated 26.11.2009 and the impugned order dated 12.3.2009 in R.C.C. No.836/2008, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule was set aside and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule was directed to take R.C.C. No. 836/2008 on board and was further directed to proceed to enquire 3 into the complaint in accordance with law. The complainant and accused were also directed to appear before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule on 14.12.2009. Accordingly, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhule took up the said R.C.C. No.836/2008 on board and passed order on 15.2.2010 and thereby Sr. P.I., Dhule Police Station was directed to register the offence and to investigate the case thoroughly and to submit the report on or before 15.3.2010, observing that this is a fit case for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, C.R. No.48/2010 came to be registered against the applicants on 5.3.2010 on the complainant of complainant namely Dipak Manik Ahirrao (Mali) i.e. brother of victim Smita. 4. On perusal of the contents of the F.I.R., it appears that, there are allegations against applicant Nos.1 to 5 in respect of subjecting deceased Smita to cruelty, ill-treatment and harassment and also unlawful demand of money to be brought by her from her parental house. There are also allegations of mental and physical torture to deceased Smita at the hands of applicant Nos.1 to 5 as well as against applicant No.6 whenever she used to come to her parental house. It is also alleged that, when deceased Smita remained pregnant, the applicant No.1 did not want the child and, therefore, he assaulted her on her stomach. It is also alleged that, 4 she was kept hungry and was driven out of the house on wearing apparel. It is further alleged that, since the applicant No.1 himself is L.I.C. agent, he took up a Jeevansathi insurance policy on 28.12.2006 for Rs.50,000/- bearing Table No.89/21 and with a view not to deposit the installments thereof, the deceased Smita was ill- treated and she was subjected to slow-poisoning and thereby she was murdered by applicant Nos.1 to 5. 5. It is further alleged that, after the first birthday of son Nityam i.e. on 15.10.2008, more particularly since 15.10.2008 the health of Smita started deteriorating and although some tablets were not suited to her, she was compelled to consume the said tablets by applicant Nos.1 to 5. It is also alleged that, although applicant No.5 himself is doctor and although applicant No.1 is connected with the hospital for number of years, they colluded with each other and inserted 3-4 injections through saline in presence of her brother Naresh, which were given to Smita and thereby her health was further deteriorated. It is further stated in the said complaint that, on 17.10.2008, Smita was shifted to Dr. Mungara’s Clinic and she was removed to I.C.U. However, thereafter she went into Coma and ultimately, expired on 25.10.2008. 6. It is further alleged in the complaint that, since the 5 deceased Smita’s parents were held up in doing telephone calls to relatives at Dhule, the applicants took the disadvantage thereof and took custody of the dead body of deceased Smita and took it to their house, and without waiting for the relatives of Smita, the said dead body was taken up to crematorium and was cremated in electric crematorium. 7. On perusal of the investigation papers and after considering the submissions advanced by the lerned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that, although Smita’s marriage took place on 11.5.2006, she expired within a short span of period i.e. on 25.10.2008, i.e. within a period of seven years from her marriage and, therefore, presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act comes into picture. It is also curious to note that, although Smita expired in hospital under aforesaid circumstances, post mortem of her dead body was not performed and the said aspect also requires investigation. Apparently, the death of Smita appears to have occurred under unnatural circumstances within a short span after the marriage as aforesaid and, therefore, the said aspect also requires thorough investigation, more particularly, in the light of aforesaid allegations against the applicants herein. 8. In the circumstances, considering the nature and gravity 6 of the offence and seriousness of the accusations made against the applicants, and also considering the rising crimes against the women in the society, I am of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary to make the further progress in the investigation in proper perspective. Moreover, having the comprehensive view of the matter, there is no false implication of the applicants in the alleged crime apparently. However, since applicant No.6 Jyoti w/o Rajendra Ramkor is married sister-in-law of deceased Smita, who resides along with her husband at her matrimonial home, I am of the view that her application for anticipatory bail deserves to be considered, whereas the application of applicant Nos.1 to 5 bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and, therefore, same deserves to be rejected. 9. In the result, the present application, to the extent of the applicant No.6 Jyoti w/o Rajendra Ramkor is allowed and interim protection granted to her stands confirmed and it is directed that, in the event of her arrest under C.R. No.48/2010, registered at Dhule City Police Station, District Dhule, she be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing P.R. bond in the like amount, on the condition that she shall attend the concerned police station as and when required and shall cooperate 7 in the investigation and also she shall not tamper with the evidence and/or influence upon the witnesses directly/ indirected. 10. However, the present application of applicant Nos.1 to 5 stands rejected. 11. Needless to say that the above bail granted to applicant No.6 is till filing of the charge sheet. It is further made clear 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/cri1137.10