1 crapn483.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 483 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 50 OF 2011 1. Kailash s/o Baburao Pandit, Age: 23 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, District Parbhani. 2. Baburao s/o Pralhad Pandit, Age: 43 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. As above. 3. Sanjeevani w/o Baburao Pandit, Age: 40 years, Occ: Household, R/o. As above. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra. Through Police Station, Sonpeth, Tq. Sonpeth, District Parbhani. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr. S.T. Ghute, Advocate for applicants. Mrs.Yogita M. Kshirsagar, APP for respondent No.1. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 22ND FEBRUARY, 2011 PER COURT : Heard learned Counsel for the applicants. 2 crapn483.11 2. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution, in Para-25 of the impugned judgment has observed thus : "According to P.W.2, they also delivered clothes etc. to accused. However, evidence led by P.W.1, P.W.2 on the point of harassment on account of 2 Lacs amount and unwanted pregnancy of deceased, remained unchallenged, unshattered. It is stated by both P.W.1 and P.W.2 that on the day of incident, just few hours prior to death, mother P.W.2 tried to talk with deceased, but she was not allowed to talk with her mother. According to P.W.2 though deceased was weeping, accused no.1 demanded money and gave threat to be ready for consequences, in case of failure of payment of money. It indicates deceased was subjected to harassment, soon before death." 3 crapn483.11 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants/appellants would submit that if it is assumed that there was a demand, even then, it cannot be said that there was any intention or act on the part of the accused to abet or aid the commission of the suicide by the deceased. 4. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the applicants/appellants placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Das vs. Kartar Singh and others reported in, AIR 2007 S.C. 2045 and submitted that, even if it is assumed for a moment that the amount was demanded, unless it is established by bringing on record by clinching evidence that soon before the commission of suicide, appellants were instrumental or they had intention to abet the commission of suicide, no conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, can be sustained. He further submitted that in cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, 4 crapn483.11 they have admitted that on inquiry, deceased told them that she was happy in the matrimonial house. He further submitted that in order to keep happy to the deceased, T.V. was purchased. He further submitted that the appellants were on bail during the pendency of the appeal. They have not misused the bail and therefore, they are entitled to the bail during the pendency of appeal. He further submitted that there is no possibility of hearing of appeal in near future. Therefore, he prayed that the applicants/appellants be released on bail. 5. Learned A.P.P. invited my attention to the evidence of prosecution witnesses and in particular, the evidence of P.W. 2 i.e. mother of the deceased, who has stated in her evidence that on the date of incident, there was telephonic conversation between accused No.1 namely Kailash and her, in which the said accused said that if the amount of Rs.2 Lacs is not paid by evening then the deceased would have to suffer 5 crapn483.11 consequences. Therefore, the learned A.P.P. would submit that this is not a fit case in which, the applicants/appellants be enlarged on bail. 6. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the applicants/appellants and learned A.P.P. for the respondent State and also perused the evidence made available and also impugned judgment and order. As stated in Para-25, the trial Court has taken into consideration the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W. 2 on the point of harassment on account of demand of Rs.2 Lacs and unwanted pregnancy of the deceased, which remains unchallenged and unshattered. The trial Court, relying on the evidence of P.W. No.1 and P.W.2, also observed that on the day of incident, just few hours prior to death, mother of the deceased P.W.2 tried to talk with the deceased, but she was not allowed to talk with her mother. According to P.W.2, though deceased was weeping, accused No.1 demanded money and gave threat to be ready for consequences, in 6 crapn483.11 case of failure of payment of money. Therefore, trial Court convicted the accused alongwith other accused. 7. Upon considering the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, prima facie, I am of the opinion that so far applicant/appellant No.2 Baburao Pralhad Pandit, and appellant No.3 Sanjeevani Baburao Pandit is concerned, they deserves to be released on bail during pendency of the appeal. However, so far applicant/appellant No.1 Kailash Baburao Pandit is concerned, the reasons recorded by the trial Court are sound and inconsonance with the evidence brought on record and therefore, I am of the opinion that the application of the appellant No.1 Kailash Baburao Pandit deserves to be rejected. Therefore, the application is partly allowed. 8. The applicant/appellant No.2 Baburao s/o Pralhad Pandit and the applicant/appellant No.3 Sanjeevani w/o Baburao Pandit, be released on same 7 crapn483.11 bail, fresh bonds. 9. As stated earlier, the application for bail of applicant/appellant No.1 Kailash Baburao Pandit stands rejected. [ S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/feb11/crapn483.11