FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4130 OF 2011 RAMESH NAMDEO PATIL AND ANR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA ... Advocate for Petitioner(s) : Mr. Patil Pradip R. APP for Respondent(s): Mrs. R.K.Ladda. ... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. Dated: October 10, 2011 ... 1. Perused investigation papers, which were made available for the inspection purpose, as well as heard learned respective counsel for the parties, finally. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicants no. 1 and 2 seeking regular bail, in connection with Crime No. 205/2011, registered at Dhule Taluka Police Station, District Dhule for the offences punishable under sections 302, 304-B, 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. It appears that crime has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant namely Subhash Baburao Patil on 9.6.2011. The complainant is the uncle of victim namely Sarita and grand father of other two victims namely Nandini and Jayesh. The applicant No.1 herein is the FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders father-in-law of said victim Sarita, whereas applicant No.2 is her brother-in-law. It is alleged in the First Information Report that the marriage of Sarita took place with Ishwar in the year 2002 and her father had given dowry of Rs.4.00 lacs. However, the applicants and other co accused were not satisfied and they used to subject deceased Sarita to mental and physical cruelty due to non fulfillment of unlawful demand of money. It is also alleged that the applicants and Ishwar i.e. husband of Sarita were addicted to liquor and they always used to be in financial difficulty. It is also alleged that to satisfy the demands of the applicants, Sarita’s father had sold his ancestral land for Rs.3 lacs, out of which he has given Rs.50,000/- to the applicants however, still the applicants and co-accused were not satisfied and continued with the ill- treatment to said Sarita. 4. It is further alleged that out of the wedlock of Sarita and Ishwar two children were born viz. Nandini aged about eight years and Jayesh aged about one year. It is also alleged that on 15.5.2011 Sarita had gone to Chalisgaon to attend the marriage in relation and, at that time, she disclosed before her mother that the applicants and co-accused persons demanded Rs.1.5 lacs, and, threatened her not to return to matrimonial home, if the said amount is not brought. She also disclosed that her in laws are cruel persons and she apprehended that FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders they would kill her. It is further alleged that, thereafter on 9.6.2011 since demands of the applicants and co-accused persons were not fulfilled, the applicants and co-accused killed the deceased Sarita and her two children by drowning them in the water tank on the terrace of the said building. 5. On the aforesaid background, learned counsel for the applicants canvassed that the applicant no.2 resides at Dhule and applicant no.1 is a old aged person about 65 years. It is also submitted that there is no cogent incriminating evidence on record to connect the applicants with the alleged crime under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. As regards alleged offence under section 304 (B) of Indian Penal Code, it is submitted that more than seven year have been elapsed after marriage between Sarita and Ishwar and therefore, presumption under section 113-B of Evidence Act cannot be attracted. As regards offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, learned counsel for the applicants fairly conceded that there are statements of the witnesses against the applicants, which apparently connect the applicants with the said crime and accordingly, learned counsel for the applicants urged that applicant nos. 1 and 2 be enlarged on bail. 6. Learned APP Mrs. Ladda countered the said arguments and opposed present application vehemently and submitted FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders that investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. It is submitted that supplementary statements of the complainant were recorded on 10.6.2011 as well as on 14.6.2011, which apparently connect the applicants with the alleged crime under section 302 of Indian Penal Code as well as under section 304-B of Indian Penal Code. It is also canvassed that statements of neighbourers also have been recorded which connect the applicants with the alleged crime. Learned APP further submitted that witnesses belong to the same vicinity, where the applicant No.1 resides, and hence, there is every possibility of pressurizing the witnesses and / or influencing the said witnesses by the applicants, if released on bail. As regards applicant No.2, it is submitted that, although, some of the witnesses have stated that he resides at Dhule, said statements of witnesses disclose that he used to visit the house of victim frequently at Tikhi Tq. & District Dhule, and therefore, he cannot be absolved from the liability. 7. Considering the rival submissions, at the outset it is apparent that deaths of three persons have taken place in the present case i.e. victim Sarita, her children Nandini and Jayesh and contents of the complaint and supplementary statements recorded on 10.6.2011 and 14.6.2011 apparently connect the applicant nos. 1 and 2 with the alleged crime. Moreover, statements of the neighbourers also are apparently FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders incriminating against the applicants and, although, statements of Pradip Patil, Tukaram Patiul and Rahul Patil disclose that applicant No.2 resides at Dhule, there are allegations in the said statements against the applicants in respect of ill- treatment meted out to the Victim Sarita by the applicants. Moreover, postmortem report of victim Sarita discloses that there were external injuries on her body as stated in clause No.17 thereof, and admittedly cause of death of all said three victims has been stated that ‘Asphyxia due to drowning’ in the respective postmortem reports. Besides, apprehension is posed by the Investigating Agency that, if, the applicants are enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of influencing/tampering and/or pressurizing the witnesses since the witnesses belong to the same vicinity. Moreover, it is also material to note that the applicants were present on the spot of the incident at the time of occurrence of the incident i.e. death of aforesaid victims i.e. Sarita, Nandini and Jayesh. Admittedly, the offence is serious and apparently, there is primafacie involvement of the applicants in the alleged crime and hence, it is not desirable to enlarge the applicants on bail, although, charge sheet is filed. 8. In the result, present application lacks merits and therefore, dismissed. However, at the request of learned counsel for the applicants and also considering the facts and FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders circumstances of the case, learned trial court is requested to expedite the hearing of the trial. 9. The above observations are the primafacie in nature, same may not be used in any other matter, being decided on merits. Present application stands disposed of finally ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. ) aaa/- ***