(1) CR.APP. 1627.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1627 OF 2009 1] Sachin S/o Sharad Kalyani, Age : 30 years, Occu.: Business, R/o Sadbhavna Nagar, Latur 2] Dr. Sharad S/o Dattatraya Kalyani, Age : 68 years, Occu.: Medical Practice, R/o Sadbhavna Nagar, Latur 3] Mrs. Sulaxana @ Sudnyani W/o Sharad Kalyani, Age : 53 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Sadbhavna Nagar, Latur .. Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad) .. Respondent Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate h/f. Mr. P.S. Dighe, Advocate for the Applicants Mr. J.S. Gavane, APP for the Respondent-State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 29th JUNE, 2009 ORAL ORDER:- 1] The applicants are seeking anticipatory (2) CR.APP. 1627.2009 bail in crime no. 76 of 2009 registered at Shivajinagar Police Station, Latur for the offences punishable under section 304-B, 306, 498-A r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2] The applicant no.1 Sachin was married to the complainant’s daughter Megha in June, 2006. The complainant as well as the applicants are natives of Barshi, a town in Solapur district. I am told that they belong to the same community. The applicant no.2 is a Medical Practitioner at Barshi. The applicant no.1 after the marriage, came to reside at Latur for doing business. Initially, the applicant no.1 and the deceased stayed with the applicant no. 1’s maternal uncle at Latur. The applicant no.1, is engaged in business of construction material and development of buildings. Few days after the marriage, the applicants constructed a new house at Latur and the applicant no.1 and his wife Megha shifted there. Megha delivered a female child after 1-1/2 year of marriage. 3] The incident took place in the morning of 17.4.2009. It has come on record that applicant no. 1 brought his wife the deceased to a private hospital at Latur. The Doctor there declared her dead. The post-mortem revealed she had committed suicide by hanging. The Police then conducted panchanama of scene of incident. They found that it was a bed-room on the first floor of the house. The (3) CR.APP. 1627.2009 door of the bed-room was broken opened. They found there two suitcases packed containing clothes of the deceased and kept ready. The Police also found that at about 5:29 am. on that day, the deceased had made a phone call to her husband using her mobile phone. The medico-legal information sent by the private hospital to the Police at about 10:20 am shows that at 10.00 am., the dead body of deceased Megha was brought to the hospital. Immediately, the Police registered accidental death under section 174 Cr.P.C. and started investigation. 4] At about 1:00 pm, the complainant-father of the deceased came from Barshi to Latur. Soon thereafter, the dead body was sent for post-mortem and the cremation of the dead body took place in the evening. On the next day the complainant lodged his complaint at about 8:30 pm. In his complaint he stated that the applicants had started harassment of his daughter soon after her marriage. They were demanding Rs.10 Lac from her. He said his daughter used to make phone calls to him and had narrated about the harassment. He also stated that recently due to an S.O.S. Of his daughter he had come to Latur and had meeting with the in-laws of the deceased. He said he had promised them the demanded amount. He stated that in this regard, he had talk with the maternal uncle of the applicant no.1 also. He further revealed that on 16.4.2009, when he had a (4) CR.APP. 1627.2009 telephonic talk with his daughter, she told him, that she was being harassed and was suffering and that he should come and take her home. The prosecution record also shows that in February, 2009 the mother in law-applicant no.3 had gone for pilgrimage and when she came back, she found that the deceased had made curry powder and papad in bulk quantity for the family’s consumption while she was away. Seeing this, the applicant no.3 got annoyed and asked his daughter-in-law as to why in her absence she took decisions and made the stuff. It has also come on record that when the complainant and his relatives came from Barshi to Latur on that day, the first thing they heard from the in-laws of the deceased was that the deceased had quarrel with her mother-in-law and due to such dispute, the deceased probably hung herself. The complainant’s cousin, father and mother supported his case about the dowry demands made by the applicants to the deceased. 5] The question is whether, the applicants deserve anticipatory bail in this case? The answer is in the affirmative. There is no doubt that the deceased committed suicide in the morning hours of 17.4.2009. It appears that at that time her husband was not at home and had gone for a walk. It appears that at that time her mother-in-law was present in the house. It appears that after the husband came home, he discovered that the deceased had committed (5) CR.APP. 1627.2009 suicide and then he took her dead body to the hospital. The question is whether there is strong prime facie case of demand of dowry against the applicants. A group of witnesses belonging to the complainant’s family alone asserted that during the three years of marriage of the deceased to the applicant no.1, she was subjected to harassment over demand of dowry. The parties belong to upper middle class of the society. They are natives of Barshi. They belong to one community. The applicant no.1 had come to Latur for business purpose from Barshi. At Latur, the applicants had constructed an independent house. The applicants have brought on record, material to show that they had considerable large amounts in their bank accounts. Not only this they also showed that a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- was deposited in the name of the deceased in the bank. The complainant is also a well to do businessman at Barshi. Apparently, there could not have been anything wrong in the life of the applicants and the deceased. In such background, had there been consistent demands from the applicants and had this been a bone of contention between the parties for quite some time prior to the death of the deceased, the complainant would have certainly taken this dispute to their common relatives. In that situation, he would have arranged a meeting between the common relatives and the parties to the dispute. There is nothing on record to show that such meeting ever took place. Three years period is quite long (6) CR.APP. 1627.2009 one. During this period there could have been incidents indicating the harassment and dowry demands. Such demands and harassment would have known to some outsiders such as neighbours, common relatives. It would have reflected in letters, messages etc. It is thus clear that the prosecution case depends only on the oral statements of the complainant and his family members to suggest that there were dowry demands from the applicants. In this background, the applicants’ assertion that the deceased was suffering from severe thyroid deficiency and was taking treatment for it and that she was also advised psychiatric treatment etc., deserves to be taken into account. 6] In my view the applicants deserve anticipatory bail because the prosecution case is not strong enough to require the applicants custodial interrogation. 7] In the event of arrest of the applicants in this case, the applicants shall be released on bail of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount. 8] Application stands disposed of. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp/29june9/cr1627.09