1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2441 OF 2010 1. Baburao S/o.Shankarrao Patil (Ghote), Age-70 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Rokada Savargaon, Tal.Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. 2. Anupama W/o.Baburao Patil, Age-65 years, Occu-Household, R/o.As above. APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.N.S.Ghanekar, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, learned APP for State Mr.R.J.Deshmukh, learned counsel for original complainant. CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 13/07/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have approached this Court for their release on bail in connection with CR No. 180/2010, registered in Cidco Police Station, Aurangabad, in which the present applicants came to be arrested on 05/06/2010. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned APP for State, and learned counsel for original complainant. Perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 2 3. These applicants are parents-in-law of deceased Suchita. It is not under dispute that marriage of Dr.Suchita was solmnised with Dr.Nitin on 03/06/2005 and Dr.Nitin is running Siddhi Vinayak Hospital. The incident in question occurred on 01/05/2010 in which, Dr.Suchita had sustained burn injuries. Around 11.00 p.m., she was admitted in Bembade Hospital. It appears that on that day, these applicants were not present in Aurangabad. It is tried to suggest during the course of submissions that these applicants, parents-in-law of deceased, were r/o.Savargaon Rokada, Tal.Ahmedpur, of Dist. Latur, and having landed properties and they are not residing with deceased, but it is alleged in the complaint that they are on frequent visiting terms to the residence of deceased and Dr.Nitin. According to the applicants, their residence of Savargaon Rokada is at a distance of 300 kms. from Aurangabad. The fact remains that on the date of incident, these applicants were present in Aurangabad, as according to them, they have plan to proceed at Pilgrim of Chardham and on that count, they were present at the residence of Dr.Nitin at Aurangabad. As per the statement disclosed in the complaint that on the date of incident, Dr.Nitin, husband of the deceased suspect that deceased have committed theft of some money and on inquiry, the dispute arose. According to the complainant, this is not the only reason, but from the date of marriage, there was frequent demands on the count to purchase landed properties as well as for construction of hospital. According to the complainant, after satisfying the initial demand, there were frequent demands on one or other count. According to the counsel 3 for applicants, as they are having sufficient landed properties and their children are well settled, they have nothing to do with the property of complainant. 4. During the course of submissions across the bar, certain bank extracts were shown, which discloses that from time to time, huge amount in lacs was paid by the parents of deceased to Dr.Nitin Patil on one or other count, but the figures of withdrawal clearly show that the amount was huge one. The fact is clear that when there was demand and the demand was satisfied, due to greediness, frequent demand were made by the parents-in-law and husband of deceased, which according to the complainant, at the instigation of these applicants. According to learned counsel for applicants, the deceased was residing with her husband and small kid Parth at Aurangabad. There is reference in the complaint that after deceased Suchita was admitted in the hospital, her first dying declaration was recorded on 02/05/2010 at 12.00 noon, her second dying declaration was recorded before arrival of her parents, in which she has not made any allegations against these applicants or anyone. Whether there are any allegations or not, the fact remains that before the alleged incident, sufficient money was paid to the family members of Dr.Nitin and particularly all those entries were found in the name of Dr.Nitin. The only question require consideration that whether there is any instigation on the part of these applicants or not. 5. All these statements as disclosed in the complaint, require to be considered in the light of diary which was recovered from the 4 residential premises of Dr.Nitin. There is reference in the complaint that Suchita was maintaining two diaries. Out of those two diaries, one diary is produced before me. On clear perusal of the contents therein, it reveals that the last date of writing of the diary was in the month of April 2010. On clear perusal of last pages of that diary, it also reveals that there is reference about instigation at the hands of these applicants. One fact require serious consideration that when the deceased had written these facts in the diary, she was unknown about her future. In the premise, it can not be inferred at least at this stage that to falsely implicate these persons, the diary was written by the deceased. 6. It is vehemently urged across the bar that these applicants as well as other relatives of the husband of deceased have nothing to do with the alleged demand. At the most Dr.Nitin may be held responsible for those demands. 7. Deceased was admitted in the hospital on 01/05/2010, and she succumbed to burn injuries on 09/05/2010. During that period, relatives from her parent’s side were throughout present in the hospital and were taking care of Dr.Suchita. Even during that period, it was her last wish to see her small kid Parth. Papers produced before this Court demonstrates that the small child was not seen by her till she took her last breath. Apart from it, during this period, her honest husband or his relatives have not made any attempts to see the deceased in the hospital. It is informed that even 5 they have not shown their desire to attend her cremation. All these facts clearly indicate that during this period, even though some statement might have given by Dr.Suchita about instigation of Dr.Sunil Patil, whether it is correct or not, it will be decided at the time of trial, and it is not proper at this stage to criticize about the investigation till carried out or the different statements made by the deceased, but the fact remains that the death of the victim is not accidental, and the circumstances which forced Dr.Suchita to commit suicide is non satisfaction of unlawful demands at the hands of her husband and his close relatives. 8. The complaint came to be lodged after the demise of Dr.Suchita on 10/05/2010. The applicants and others were trying their level best to get free from the clutches of law and also tried to get released on anticipatory bail. During this period, they were concealing themselves at various places in this State as well as in the State of Karnataka. Considering the conduct of applicants during the lifetime of Dr.Suchita, and even after her demise, as they were trying to conceal themselves from the clutches of law, this Court is of the view that at least till completion of investigation, it is not safe to release the applicants on bail. In view of this, application is sans merit, hence rejected. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JULY 2010/cri.appl.2441-10