1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1281 OF 2010 Devidas @ Sharad Rajaram Pandharkar ...Applicant (Orig. accused) VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri N.V.Gaware, advocate for the applicant Shri D.V.Tele, A.P.P. for the respondent. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 15th April, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri N.V.Gaware, advocate for the applicant and Shri D.V.Tele, A.P.P. for the respondent. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking bail in connection with CR No. I-401 of 2009, registered at Shrigonda police station, Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 328, 498A, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, since he is arrested on 8.3.2010 and is under 2 judicial custody presently. 3 It appears that the offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant, namely Jyoti Devidas @ Sharad Pandharkar on 24.10.2009 in respect of the occurrence of the incident on 16.10.2009. The applicant is the husband of the complainant, who admittedly married with each other about 1½ years prior to the date of occurrence of the incident. 4 It is alleged in the said complaint that the applicant is a Software Engineer and is serving at M.I.D.C. Pune and used to visit the complainant after 8 to 10 days, since the complainant was residing at Pimpalgaon Pisa, Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar. The complaint reflects the allegations in respect of cruelty, harassment and illtreatment to which complainant was subjected at the hands of the applicant i.e the husband and his family members, alleging that she was unable to cook and she was unable to do any job. It is also alleged that the applicant intended to do another marriage, and therefore, he wanted to get rid of the complainant, and hence she was tortured, physically and mentally. It is also alleged that on the date of incident i.e. on 16.10.2009 at about 12.30 p.m. when the complainant was working in the field near well, the applicant came there and asked 3 the complainant to give permission to him to enter into another marriage, since she was unable to cook and she was unable to do any job. He also asked the complainant to commit suicide by jumping into the well, but she stated that she knew swimming, hence the applicant asked her to go home and consume some medicine and die. Thereafter the applicant and complainant went to their home and applicant gave one bottle containing some medicine to her and asked her to consume the same, but the complainant asked him to open the cover thereof and thereafter the applicant opened the cover thereof and caused the complainant to consume the medicine containing therein forcibly. Thereafter the complainant became unconscious and was admitted to the hospital for medical treatment. 5 On the afore said back ground, learned counsel for the applicant canvassed that although the incident occurred on16.10.2009, the first information report came to be lodged after delay of 8 days i.e. on 24.10.2010 and the said delay creates suspicion about the contents of the first information report. 6 Learned counsel for the applicant also urged that it is pertinent to note that after consuming the medicine by the complainant, the applicant only took her to the hospital and 4 admitted there for medical treatment and the conduct of the applicant needs to be considered with proper perspective. It is also submitted that the applicant is a Software Engineer and is jail since 1 month and 7 days and investigation has almost been completed, and therefore, there is no propriety in keeping the applicant in custody further more, and therefore he be released on bail. 7 Learned A.P.P. opposed the present application and submitted that investigation has not been completed so far and same is under progress. An apprehension is posed that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility that he would threaten the complainant i.e. his wife to deceive her from telling the truth before the court. Learned A.P.P. also submits that aspect of alleged delay can be considered at the time of trial after appreciating the evidence and same need not be considered at this stage of bail. Accordingly, learned A.P.P. submitted that present application deserves to be rejected since there is no merit. 8 On perusal of the investigation papers and after considering the submissions advanced by both the parties, admittedly although the incident occurred on 16.10.2009, the 5 first information report came to be lodged on 24.10.2009 i.e. after the period of 8 days and apparently there is delay in lodging the first information report. However, the aspect of delay can be considered at the time of trial after appreciating the evidence and same need not be considered at this stage. Moreover, it also appears that the bottle containing poisonous substance has already been seized and statements of witnesses have already been recorded. Moreover, further it appears that the co-accused Ratan Rajaram Pandharkar i.e. mother-in-law of the complainant has been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. It also appears that investigation has been almost completed, and therefore, there is no propriety in keeping the applicant in custody further more. 9 As regards the apprehension posed by the learned A.P.P. that the applicant may threaten the complainant i.e. his wife, if released on bail, necessary condition can be imposed upon the applicant to meet with the said apprehension while releasing him on bail. In the circumstances, present application deserves to be allowed, but on imposing certain conditions upon the applicant. 10 In the result, present Criminal Application No. 1281 of 6 2010 is allowed and the applicant be released on bail in connection with CR No. I-401 of 2009, registered with Shrigonda police station, Ahmednagar, on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing P.R. Bond in the like amount, on the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall not enter into village Pimpalgaon Pisa, Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar, till filing of the charge sheet. (ii) The applicant shall attend the police station once in a week i.e. on every Thursday in between 5.00 p.m. to 7.p.m. till filing of he charge sheet and shall cooperate in the investigation. (iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and/or influence upon the witnesses, more particularly his wife complainant namely Joyti Devidas Pandharkar, directly or indirectly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap1281.10