1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5393 OF 2009 Daulatrao Mothabhau Jadhav ------ Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ------ Respondent Mr. Vikas Shivarkar, Advocate for Applicant. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for State CORAM : V.M. Kanade, J. Date : 18th February, 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant has been arrested in connection with an offence punishable under Section 201, 302, 304(B), 498-A r/w 34 Indian Penal Code. The F.I.R. was registered at Jamkheda Police Station, District Nashik Vide C.R. No. I/39/2008. In the said complaint, it was alleged by the father of the deceased that the applicant who is father-in-law of the deceased used to harass her and used to demand money from time to time. The applicant s son and the deceased got ’ married on 24th April 2007. It is alleged that the demand of Rs.1.00 2 lac was made by the applicant to the complainant and his family. Due to pressure of the said demand, the complainant could obtain hand loan of Rs.50,000/- from his brother and went to the house of applicant on 18th April 2008. However, the applicant threw the said amount on the face of the complainant and warned him that unless he pays the amount of Rs.1.00 lac, his daughter will not be accepted in the house. Within few days thereafter, the daughter of the complainant was found in a well. It is alleged that the depth of the well was about 1 feet. She was lying in supine condition. Post ½ mortem was conducted and the cause of death was reserved by the Doctor and viscera was sent to the Chemical Analyser. However, subsequently the report was sent by the Chemical Analyser, in which he gave his opinion that no poison was detected in the viscera and thereafter the Doctor gave his opinion that the cause of death due to asphyxia due to laryngeal spasm due to drowning in well. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant firstly submitted that the applicant is in jail since April 2008 and that the other accused was released on bail. He further submitted that no injuries were found on the person of deceased and it was unlikely that the applicant would commit murder of his daughter-in-law, when 3 the marriage of his daughter was fixed within a short time. However, the applicant be released on bail. On the other hand, the learned APP opposed the grant of his bail. She submitted that the death had taken place within one year from the date of marriage and therefore the presumption was raised under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code that the death was on account of demand of dowry. She submitted that the complainant and the other witnesses had made a categorical statement that the applicant had demanded dowry. She submitted that the dead body of the deceased was under miscellaneous circumstances and it was highly impossible that the deceased had committed suicide in the well, where the depth of water was hardly 1 feet. It was therefore submitted that no case is ½ made out for grant of bail. 4. After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned APP, I am of the view that the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, taking into consideration the material on record, this is not the fit case for grant of bail. 5. Firstly the death of deceased has taken place within one year of the marriage. Secondly, there is definite material to show that the demand of dowry was made by the applicant and he had 4 threatened the complainant that his daughter would not be kept in the house and within two days thereafter the dead body of the complainant s daughter was found in the well. The panchanama of ’ the scene of offence also clearly reveals that the articles belonging to the deceased were found at the distance of 10 to 15 feet from the well. The depth of well was hardly 1 feet and therefore, it is ½ difficult to accept the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that the deceased had committed suicide by jumping in the well. Taking into consideration the depth of the water in the well, it is difficult to accept the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that no injuries were found on the person of deceased and the said circumstance, was to be considered in favour of the applicant. In my view, on the contrary, these facts clearly suggest that the body of the applicant may have been thrown in the well after she has murdered. Therefore, in my opinion, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. However, since the applicant is in jail since April 2008, in my view, it would be appropriate if the trial is expedited. The sessions court is directed to decide the case as expeditiously as 5 possible and in any case within a period of six months. The trial Court shall not be influenced by any observations made by this Court in this order, since these observations are essentially of a prima facie nature and trial Court shall decide the case in accordance with law. ( V.M. Kanade, J.)