1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 2267 of 2009 Madhav v. State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr Sagar Dhole, Adv for applicant Mr A. Parihar, APP for State Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 7th August 2009 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Applicant is seeking bail in Crime No. 43/2008 registered with Police Station,Ansing, Tahsil and District Washim under Sections 498A, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has been in jail since about one year and, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. In order to show bonafides of the applicant, learned counsel contends that applicant had taken his wife for medical treatment to Washim at Dr Deole’s dispensary on 16.7.2008 and thereafter she was removed to Government Hospital on 21.7.2008. He tried to contend that it was father of deceased Maya alias Archana who had objected for her 2 operation that Maya @ Archana died. He submits that applicant is innocent and police have mechanically implicated in the offence. Learned counsel for the applicant relied on Dharmendra Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in 2001 AIR SCW 5184 to contend that since limited role is attributed to applicant, he can be released on conditional bail since he is in jail for one year. He further contends that since there is no apprehension on the part of prosecution that presence of applicant could not be ensured for trial, applicant may be enlarged on bail. For that, he placed reliance on judgment of Orissa High Court in Prakash Chand and ors v. State of Orissa reported in 1993 Cri.L.J. 3803 and judgment of Cuttack High Court in Bimal Kumar and anr v. State of Orisswa reported in 2007 Cri.L.J. 958. 3. Learned APP while opposing the application contended that death occurred within 45 days of the marriage which had taken place on 14.6.2008. He submitted that deceased was treated well only for eight days after marriage and thereafter applicant was insisting upon her to come to forest for bringing wooden sticks and when she refused, she was beaten mercilessly by kicks, fists and stick. Applicant was also taunted due to her black complexion. He contended bamboo with iron head and stone have been seized at the instance of applicant. 4. In the present case, post-mortem notes reveal injuries received by deceased as also cause of death due to multiple 3 injuries with septicemia supporting statement of deceased that she was subjected to cruelty by the applicant and other family members. Deceased was just about 19 years od age. Bamboo stick with iron head and stone at the instance of applicant were recovered in the course of investigation. Statements of neighbourers have been recorded indicating that accused persons used to beat deceased Archana. In Dharmendra Patel’s case (supra), there was allegation of oral exhortation against applicant and, therefore, he was granted bail considering the fact that he was in jail for about a year. In this case, applicant is directly involved in ill-treating, harassing and beating deceased Archana and therefore ratio laid down in the case cannot be applied to the present case. In Purakh Chand’s case and Bimal Kumar’s case (supra), there was no incriminating material against accused and allegations of torture were not substantiated and, therefore, applicants therein were released on bail. In this case, statements of deceased Archana and other statements clearly implicate the applicant and merely because he is permanent resident of the place where he is residing, cannot entitle the applicant to be enlarged on bail. Both these rulings are, therefore, not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Considering the material collected against the applicant; statements of witnesses and deceased, recovery of weapon and post-mortem notes, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Application is, therefore, rejected. However, if 4 charge-sheet is filed, learned Trial Court is expected to dispose of trial as early as possible. Judge. Hsj