1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4818 OF 2010 Idris Kasamsahab Shaikh ...Applicant. v. State of Maharashtra ...Respondents. Mr. Hiten S. Venegavkar, adv. For the Applicant. Smt. G.P.Mulekar, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JANUARY 10, 2011. P.C. 1 Applicant, who is accused no.1 in crime no.211 of 2009 registered at Shantinagar police station, Bhiwandi for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A r/w section 34 of the I.P.C. has filed this application for bail. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP. 2 Prosecution case in brief is that on 8.6.2009 the deceased Afrin, daughter of the complainant Mohammed Salim Ansari, was married to the present applicant on 8.6.2009. On 28.6.2009 at about 00.30 a.m. Mohammed Salim got telephonic message that Afrin had become unconscious. Immediately Mohammed Salim and his wife rushed towards the house of the accused. On the way they got message that she was shifted to the hospital. They also reached the hospital at 2 about 1 a.m. and came to know that Afrin had died. Mohammed Salim suspected something wrong in the death of Afrin, therefore, he requested for post mortem examination. Accordingly, on the same day first post mortem examination was conducted. On 29.6.2009 Mohammed Salim lodged a report at the police station making allegations of illtreatment at the hands of the husband and other relatives as they were not satisfied with dowry given because they wanted an amount of Rs.1 lac and some furniture. Second post mortem report of the deadbody was conducted on 29.6.2009 and head injury was noticed but opinion about the cause of death was reserved and it was furnished on 15.4.2010. As per that report , the cause of death was head injury. On the basis of report lodged by father of the deceased and later statements, present applicant and his close relatives including his parents residing in U.P. were made accused. However, other accused persons have been granted bail. Present applicant is in custody. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant is in custody for the last about 1 and half years but trial is not yet commenced nor even the charge is framed. According to him, in spite of two post mortem reports, there is no clear opinion about the cause of death and, therefore, applicant be granted bail. Application is opposed by the prosecution. 3 3 On perusal of the first post mortem report, it appears that no injury was noticed on the body, particularly no injury was noted on the head and viscera was preserved and opinion about the cause of death was reserved. On request by the father of the deceased, second post mortem was conducted on the next date. In paragraph 17, three injuries were noted out. Out of them two were first post mortem incision wounds on the head. However, on internal examination autopsy surgeon noted contusion over the temporal area in front of ear of size 3 X 3 cm red colour, contusion over the left occipital protuberance red colour and contusion over the vertex red colour. Haemorrhage was also seen on the parietal area under scalp. No fracture of the skull was noted. Doctors have opined that cause of death was head injury. She died within twenty days after her marriage at the house of the husband with head injury. Injury does not appear to be self-inflicted. Whether the opinion of the Doctor was correct or not needs to be examined at the time of trial but prima-facie there is reason to believe that somebody at her matrimonial home had assaulted her and caused head injury resulting in her death. Though there is no eye witness, needle of suspicion would point towards the husband particularly in view of the allegations made by the father in the F.I.R. In these circumstances, merely because applicant is in custody 4 for 1 and half years, I am not inclined to grant bail. If bail is granted , he may tamper with prosecution evidence. 4 For the aforesaid reasons, application stands rejected. However, the trial Court is hereby directed to expedite the trial and dispose off the case by the end of April, 2011. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)