jpc ba929-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 929 OF 2011 1) Nilesh Kantilal Chauhan 2) Bharat Kantilal Chauhan ... Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr. C.P. Sengaonkar and Mr. Kamlesh P. Mali for the applicants Mrs. R. V. Newton, APP for the State CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 19th July, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Sengaonkar, the learned advocate for the applicants and Mrs. Newton, the learned APP for the State. 2. I have gone through the bail application, the annexures thereto and the copy of the charge-sheet which is tendered by the learned advocate for the applicants. 3. One Dipti-wife of Applicant No.1, jumped down from the terrace of the building where she was staying, with the five years child of applicant no.1 and the said Dipti. The applicant no.2, is the brother of applicant no.1. The allegation against the applicants is that they had jpc ba929-11.sxw 2 been treating Dipti with cruelty ever since her marriage with applicant no.1 and that Dipti had committed suicide because of the cruel treatment given to her by the applicants. The applicants are alleged to have abetted the said Dipti to commit suicide. Going by the material collected during the investigation, it appears that the main grievance of Dipti was never against applicant no.1-her husband. It also appears that though grievance appears to be against applicant no.2 and the other accused in the case, applicant no.2 was not staying with Dipti and the applicant no.1. It appears that they had been staying separately since last about three years. The marriage of Dipti and the applicant had taken place on 28th November, 2000. No suicide note was left by Dipti before her death. Therefore, what exactly led her to taking the drastic step of putting an end to her life and also to that of her child, is not clear. 4. Learned APP draws my attention to the statement of one Smt. Savita which indicates that there was some quarrel between the deceased Dipti and applicant no.2 on 14/4/2011, and it is expected to infer therefrom that Dipti had committed suicide because something that had happened on that day. jpc ba929-11.sxw 3 5. As regards the applicant no.1, he deserves to be released on bail. Even as regards applicant no.2, though, it may be said that in all probability, Dipti committed suicide because of the torments caused to her by applicant No.2. I see no point in requiring the detention of applicant no.2, till the trial would be over. I am, therefore, inclined to release applicant no.2 also on bail. 6. Under the circumstances, the application is allowed. 7. Applicant No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with one surety in like amount. 8. Applicant No.2 is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one surety in like amount. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)