- 1 - 446 rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.446 OF 2011 Shri Santosh Laxman Jangam .. Applicant vs State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.P.B.Naiknaware for Applicant Ms.P.P.Shinde APP for Respondent-State CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J DATE: 15th April, 2011 PER COURT 1. Heard. Notice is already served upon APP. Investigator present. Report available with APP. 2. Accused-applicant is in custody from 1.8.2010 in Crime No.89 of 2010 for an offence under section 302 of IPC with Roha police station, District Raigad and seeks bail. Counsel for the applicant submits - 2 - 446 that there are two set of investigation papers. One statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the parents of the deceased while the other by parents of the accused- applicant. In the scenerio according to him, benefit of doubt will favour the accused to be enlarged on bail. 3. To illustrate his point, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon ble apex court in the matter of State of Maharashtra vs Sanjay S/o Digambarrao Rajhans reported in 2005 Supreme Court cases (Cri) 231 and in particular para 17 which reads thus : Thus, the version of homicide set up by the prosecution as well as the version of suicide set up by the accused appear to be highly improbable and do not inspire confidence in the mind of the court to believe either version. In this state of things, when two incredible versions confront the court, the court has to give benefit of doubt - 3 - 446 to the accused and it is not safe to sustain the conviction. 4. There cannot be quarrel to the proposition as inunciated by the hon ble apex court. The facts highlighted in the present case are otherwise. The accused felt enraged due to outburst of his wife slapping him in presence of his father,when both were sleeping, the accused allegedly strangulated her. The theory of suicidal death at this stage is difficult to comprehend. The post mortem notes that death was due to asphixia and strangulation speaks volumes. 5. In addition, earlier identical efforts made by the applicant to be enlarged on bail before this court did not yield any result in Criminal Application No.105 of 2011 on 3.4.2011, this court after allowing, learned - 4 - 446 counsel to withdraw the application, directed the learned Sessions Judge, at Raigad to ensure disposal of Sessions case within six moths. A survey of the above details does not call to release the applicant-accused on bail. Application rejected. K.U.Chandiwal, J