{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.150 OF 2010 Babasaheb s/o Bhanudar Jige APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Ms.Rajeshree Gudgdlle, h/f Mr.Vijay Sharma, Adv. for applicant Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for respondent State Mr.R.O.Awasarmol, Advocate for original complainant ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 1st February 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this application, the applicant has prayed to release him on bail in connection with CR No.170/2009 registered with Amad Police Station for an offence punishable u/s 304-B, 498-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as the applicant is arrested on 27.09.2009 and as after completion of the investigation charge sheet has been filed on 22.12.2009. 2. It appears that earlier application of the present applicant was rejected on 26.12.2009 while application of two others was allowed. It was observed in the order that case of the {2} applicant cannot be treated at par with other accused, who are released on bail. 3. Admittedly, marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the present applicant on 06.05.2009 and the alleged incident occurred on 27.09.2009 i.e. within a span of 4 and half months of the date of the marriage. The post mortem notes clearly establish that the death is unnatural and it is further corroborated from the report of the C.A., as at the time of P.M. viscera was preserved and sent for chemical analysis. Today, report of CA is received, which shows that poison was found in the viscera. Thus, if the death is occurred within a span of 7 years of the marriage that too unnatural death, it is for the custodian of the deceased to prove as it is a rebuttal presumption on the husband and his relatives that there is no harassment on the count of dowry. Statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation establish that there was harassment not only on the count of dowry, but there was illicit relations of the applicant with some other lady and on that count also there was harassment of the deceased by the applicant. 4. Considering these aspects though the charge sheet is filed, no case is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail. In the result, the application, which is sans merits stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln150-10 {3} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.373 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.150 OF 2010 Appasaheb s/o Bhimrao Kolte APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.R.O.Awasarmol, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for respondent State Ms.Rajeshree Gudgdlle, h/f Mr.Vijay Sharma, Adv. for R-2 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 1st February 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to respondents. Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and Ms.Rajeshree accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. 2. By this application, the applicant has prayed to allow him to assist learned APP in opposing criminal application No. 150/2010. Both the learned counsel for respondents have no {4} objection to allow the applicant to assist the APP. In the premise, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses “A” and “B” and stands disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln150-10