1appln-2538-10l IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No. 2538 of 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr Dilip Bodake, for the Applicant. Mrs A. S. Pai, A.P.P.,for the State. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 29TH JULY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this application for regular bail preferred by both the applicants in connection with C.R. No. I-43/2009 registered by Chandwad Police Station, District Nashik for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.Code. Another co-accused No.3 is reportedly released on bail on the ground of old age. 2. Allegations against the present applicant who are husband and father-in-law of the deceased woman, are that there used to be 2appln-2538-10l quarrel between the deceased and applicant-accused No.1 and applicant No.1 was doubting the character of the deceased and was censoring her on various counts pointing out to her behaviour. First information report is lodged immediately on noticing by the mother of the deceased that reportedly dead body of the victim is found in the well in the premises belonging to the applicants. There are specific allegations against the present applicants as to they ill-treated and harassed the deceased and on the fateful day they strangulated her and made it to believe that dead body was found in the well as the deceased accidentally had fallen in the well while getting water. 3. Admittedly, three earlier bail applications filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad, District Nashik were rejected by the learned Sessions Judge vide respective orders dated 16.4.2009, 25.6.2009 and 27.10.2009. First two applications were filed during pendency of investigation. Third bail application was filed after filing of the charge-sheet and it was rejected by the same Court. While rejecting such bail applications wherein, apparently, the contents of the postmortem report are specifically mentioned that the death of the deceased woman was due to strangulation and asphyxia, during the arguments, this Court has enquired with the learned A.P.P. for the State 3appln-2538-10l as to what are the findings in the postmortem report and what is the cause of death, when such postmortem report is not attached to the present application, though charge-sheet is already filed. At that time, it was reported on behalf of the applicants that the contents of the said report are not legible, hence copy of the same is not attached to the present application. Thereafter, the factual position was brought to the notice of the Court by the learned A.P.P. for the State that reference to the contents of postmortem is appearing in the earlier three bail orders which are referred to above. 4. Considering the above circumstances and considering the prima facie material against the present applicant there is nothing to allow the present application. In the result, the following order. ORDER: (a) Bail application No. 2538/2010 is rejected. (b) Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. (A.R.JOSHI,J) LRS-PA