( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4787 OF 2010 Babasaheb Gahininath Wagh, R/o Nandurnimba Daitya, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar. APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT .... Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, advocate for the applicant. Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 26th November, 2010] PER COURT : 1. The application is for bail under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P. 3. The chargesheet is already filed after due investigation. ON 30th August, 2010, Anita, who was wife of ( 2 ) the applicant, died in the matrimonial home due to electrocution. It is alleged by the complainant that the applicant used to harass and illtreat her since about one (1) year on account of her non-fulfillment of unlawful demand of Rs. one (1) lac which he needed to purchase a truck vehicle. It is also alleged that the applicant is addicted to liquor drinking and used to often beat Anita under inebriated condition. He had beaten up her previously on 25th April, 2010 and, therefore, she had gone to house of her parents. She resided with her parents for about one & half month. Thereafter, the applicant went to house of inlaws and resided for about a week with them. He urged her parents to send her with him. He assured that he will not trouble her any more. He threatened that if Anita would not be sent with him, then he may commit suicide in their house by consuming some poisonous insecticide/drug. Her father, therefore, sent Anita to cohabit with him. On 28th August, 2010 at about 10 p.m., she contacted her father on cell phone and informed him that the members of the husband's family were giving trouble to her. At that time, the applicant snatched away the mobile phone from her and abused her. He told the father-in-law (complainant) that he will not keep Anita alive and immediately switched of the cell phone. The informant again ( 3 ) attempted to contact Anita but could not do so as the cell phone was switched of. After passing of a day, on 30th August, 2010, the applicant informed the informant that in the relevant morning at about 9 a.m., Anita received electric shock and died in the house. 4. The learned advocate for the applicant would submit that the entire case of the prosecution depends upon suspicion and involvement of the applicant is rather based upon conjectures. He would submit that there is more probability that Anita died due to accidental electrocution. He contended that the chargesheet reflects one sided story and the statements of the minor son and daughter of deceased Anita were not at all recorded by the police or purposefully have been omitted while filing of the chargesheet. He argued that when the minor daughter by name Sakshi, aged about 3 years, also had received some injuries during course of the incident, it is improbable that the applicant might have caused electrocution of the wife. 5. Perusal of the investigation papers would make it clear that there is no eye witness account about the alleged incident of electrocution. It is true that the neighbours and ( 4 ) other strangers had no occasion, in the ordinary course, to witness such an incident which occurred within the four walls of the house of the applicant. However, in such a case, atleast the statement of minor son by name Jatin alias Jatig could have shed light on the real facts. It seems that the statement of the minor son is not made part of the chargesheet. It appears prima facie that Sakshi was also injured during the course of incident, but her statement is also not recorded though her presence at the relevant time is natural and more probable due to her victimization in the course of same incident. The spot panchanama prima facie shows that electricity wire was illegally and unauthorizedly connected to a pole situated at a distance of about 65 feet from the house of the applicant. It is prima facie evident that the applicant was obtaining electricity by using a hook connected to the service wire on that pole and was committing theft of the electricity. The versions of neighbours viz. Dhondiram Garje, Dinkar Garje and Mohammad Shahabuddin prima facie purport to show that the applicant immediately disclosed to them that Anita had received electric shock and as such, died. They narrated before the police that the applicant was addicted to liquor drinking. It appears that there used to be quarrels between the spouses. However, the statements of the ( 5 ) abovenamed neighbours do not show any particular instance of matrimonial cruelty meted out to deceased Anita at hands of the applicant. They do not prima facie corroborate allegation that he was demanding Rs. one (1) lac from her parents and was causing continuous harassment to Anita by starving her and giving trouble or physical and mental harassment. In the context of matrimonial cruelty, there are omnibus statements of other paternal relatives of Anita. The post-mortem report shows that there was a single burn injury on the left middle ring finger and right foot of deceased Anita which were found to be charred. The manner in which she was subjected to electrocution is not clear from the record. Under the circumstances, it will have to be said that there are strong suspicious circumstances, yet, no substantial prima facie case is made out to show that the applicant is author of the electrocution. This is so particularly when the statements of natural witnesses i.e. minor son and daughter, are not placed on record. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds in sum of Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand), with one solvent surety bond in the ( 6 ) like sum, to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, and on further condition that he shall not enter the Pathardi Taluka during pendency of criminal case and shall not contact any of the prosecution witnesses and particularly his minor children during the period of pendency of the trial. He shall furnish an undertaking to such an effect while furnishing the bail bonds before the Court of Sessions. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln4787-10