IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.128 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.128 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.128 OF 2008 Popat Rangrao Nikam ..Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.Mundargi i/b. Milind Deshmukh for the Applicant Ms. Shinde for the State Mr. Rahul Kate for the original complainant CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 24th April, 2008. DATED : 24th April, 2008. DATED : 24th April, 2008. P.C. 1. The petitioner happens to be husband of deceased Rupali and FIR is filed by the mother of Rupali, Mrs. Suman Mhaske. The main incident of assaulting Rupali is said to have taken place on 6th July, 2007 and on account of death of Rupali FIR came to be filed in detail as to how the applicant used to treat Rupali, and other aspects of the matter. The applicant came to be arrested in C.R.No.64 of 2007 under Section 302, 498A, 342 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. and is in custody since 8th July, 2007. The mother of Rupali has alleged that the applicant used to treat Rupali with cruelty in the first portion of the FIR itself. Subsequent portion of the FIR also indicates as to the manner -2- in which Rupali was treated by the applicant. This would go to show that prima facie case for charge under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code is made out. 2. So far as the charge under Section 302 of IPC is concerned, daughter of applicant by name Pallavi, who is aged about five years has rendered statement which came to be recorded in the question and answer form and she has given detail answers to the questions as to what happened on Saturday. Perusal of her statement would clearly go to show that in the presence of said Pallavi the applicant is alleged to have brutally assaulted Rupali with stick and thereafter Pallavi and other two childrens were made to stand outside and after sometime the applicant came out by keeping Rupali in the house, locked the room from outside and went away. Murlidhar, the neighbour has rendered the statement to indicate as to in what circumstances the door of the house of the applicant came to be broken open and as to how he along with Mrs.Suman found the dead body of Rupali in the house. It is pertinent to note that since after the incidence on 6th July, 2007 and in particular on the next day -3- i.e. on 7th July, 2007 the applicant was not immediately available nearabout his residence or he is not said to have taken necessary care to show his presence nearabout his wife. 3. With this material, learned Advocate Mr. Mundargi prays for bail. 4. After considering the material in the nature of statement of Pallavi and Murlidhar, one thing is clear that Pallavi speaks of overt act alleged to have been done by the applicant so as to make himself responsible for the death of Rupali. As per the statement of the Medical Officer who conducted the post mortem of Rupali, she has died due to haemorrhagic shock due to intracranial haemorrhage due to multiple head injuries. This findings support the words of Pallavi as regard assault by the applicant on the head of Rupali. Subsequent developments are manifested through statement of Murlidhar which throws light on the case of the prosecution. With this I am inclined to observe that the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the applicant for the charge under Section 302 and 498A IPC. With the -4- aforesaid observations the question as to whether the applicant deserves to be released on bail has to be considered, and the answer is in the negative, mainly for the two reasons firstly that the applicant had no remorse for what he had done on 6th July, 2007 and that he remained away from the entire scene on 7th July, 2007. Kumari Pallavi, who is an eye witness to the incident of applicant having assaulted Rupali with stick, is presently staying with her grand parents from her mother’s side, and I am inclined to observe that if the applicant is released on bail, there is likelihood that the applicant will try to tamper the prosecution evidence. His neighbour Murlidhar happens to be a man of ordinary living and there is every likelihood that he may be pressurized by the applicant. In view of the above, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Hence the following order: ORDER . Bail application is rejected. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)