1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO. 350 OF 2011 ( Ravindra Sahebrao Ingole Vs. State of Mah. PSO PS Rajapeth Amravati) ........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................ Shri P. V. Tamhane Adv for applicant. Shri D. B. Patel APP for non applicant/State. CORAM: M. N. GILANI J. DATED: 22nd JULY, 2011. . The applicant has filed this application for releasing him on bail against whom offence bearing Crime No. 320 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of Indian Penal Code is registered at the Police Station Rajapeth, Amravati. One Mamta married the applicant one year prior to the date of incident. In the marriage it was agreed that dowry of Rs. 25,000/- would be given to the applicant. However, while performing marriage parents of Mamta could pay only an amount of Rs. 5000/- and agreed to pay balance of Rs. 20,000/- in installments. 2 After marriage for initial period there was normal life. Thereafter the applicant started illtreating her on account of non payment of balance amount of Rs. 20,000/-. On 14.10.2010 at about 8 p.m. Mamta telephoned her mother that her husband and her in-laws were asking for balance amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Mamta wanted that her mother should immediately come to her house. Her mother promised to meet her on the next day. Unfortunately, on the same night at about 10 p.m. the applicant informed parents of Mamta that Mamta suffered burns and died. When her brother and others reached to the house of the applicant, they found that she was lying dead in the house in burnt condition. Postmortem examination revealed 98% burns. Carbon particles were seen in trachea and lungs. The applicant filed bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after perusing the evidence collected by the prosecution, thought it fit not to release the applicant on bail. According to him there is evidence suggesting illtreatment meted out to the deceased and that death of Mamta occurred just within a year of their marriage. Learned counsel for the applicant has made reference to 3 the statements of witnesses particularly the neighbourers. They have stated before the police that they had never seen the couple quarreling nor the deceased had made any complaint of ill- treatment to them. It is common knowledge that the incidents of ill-treatment or details of matrimonial discord always remain confined to the four walls. They are rarely divulged to the neighbourers. Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the F. I. R. lodged by the brother of the deceased immediately after the incident. It is true that he did not make any allegation of illtreatment which was being meted out to the deceased. However, after two days of the incident he gave detailed information to the police which has been treated as F. I. R. In his statement and the statements of parents of the deceased it is surfaced that there was constant demand from the applicant for the payment of balance amount of Rs. 20,000/-. The contention of the learned counsel that the statements are prototype and almost replica of each other cannot be accepted at this stage. There is a well settled principle that detailed examination of the evidence and the documentation of the merits of the case cannot be undertaken at the stage of deciding bail application. He placed reliance on the decision of the 4 learned Single Judge of this Court in Karbhari Dhondiba Rahane & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 2253 and in case of Amar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3391. Statements of the witnesses point out that dowry of Rs. 25,000/-, was settled and out of that only Rs. 5000/- were paid. Initially for the period of six months, deceased was treated well and thereafter illtreatment started which ultimately resulted in her unnatural death. On perusal of the spot panchanama and the findings in postmortem report, there is reason to believe that deceased was doused with kerosene oil and this is how she had sustained 98% burn injuries. Time was about 10 p.m. This unfortunate incident occurred just within a year of marriage. Thus the statements of the witnesses and the circumstantial evidence point out the involvement of the accused in the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Considering the gravity of the offence, learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in rejecting the application. There is no alternative than to take same view. Application is 5 rejected. Since the accused is in custody from 16.10.2010 the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall make endevour to dispose of the Sessions Trial as expeditiously as possible. JUDGE svk