1 APPLN 3623 OF 2010.sxw vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3623 OF 2010. Meghnath Kaluram Patil .. Applicant -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. Sandesh Patil with Mr. Prashant Jadhav, for the Applicant. Mrs P.P. Shinde, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 25th August, 2010 P.C. 1. The applicant husband of the victim seeks enlargement on bail on the ground that the allegations against him, his sister and cousin were same and while his sister and cousin have been admitted to bail and he has been denied the same. 2. The applicant was married to the victim in the year 2004. it was alleged that the the deceased Kunda was illtreated for failure to fulfill the unlawful demand of money for purchase of tractor by applicant. It was alleged that four months prior to the incident, applicant had brought his cousin who was being treated as applicant’s wife which led to a quarrel. The victim’s brother states that he had gone to give report about the incident to Police station, but the applicant and victim came and settled the matter. 2 APPLN 3623 OF 2010.sxw Two months before the incident, victim had suffered fracture and her leg had been kept under plaster. About l0 days before the incident the victim had complained to her mother that she was beaten. On 7.7.2010, the victim’s dead body was found in a pond. 3. It is the case of the applicant that the victim had gone to wash clothes like all the other women from the village to the pond and it is not known as to how she met with her death. The applicant contends that there was no reason for the victim to commit suicide . There was no illtratment at his hand. 4. The learned APP points out that the investigation is yet not completed. She submits that there is no reason for a woman having two children to commit suicide unless life become unbearable and therefore, in the light of allegations made by the victim’s brother about applicant’s keeping mistress and illtreating the victim, the applicant may not be admitted to bail. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant’s case is similar to that of two other co accused who have been admitted to bail is not correct because the accused who have been admitted to bail, are sister and cousin of the applicant who may have instigated the applicant to illtreat her. But the applicant, being husband, had a role to protect his wife and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge rightly refused the bail to the applicant while admitting other two persons to bail. There is no 3 APPLN 3623 OF 2010.sxw question of applicant being admitted to bail on parity. The application is, therefore, rejected. 6. As the investigation is still not complete. The applicant may renew his request after the chargesheet is filed. 7. The observations made while deciding any bail application obviously would not be considered while hearing the case on merits. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)