(1) FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO: 2466 /2009 ( Anandrao Arjun Darve vs. State of Maharashtra ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. ............................................................................................................................ Mr. A P Sadavarte, Advocate for applicant Mr. D B Patel APP for Respondent CORAM: A.P. BHANGALE,J. DATED: 27 th July, 2009. 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. By this application, the applicant prayed for grant of bail in connection with Sessions Case No.58/2009 pending at the Sessions Court, Chandrapur. It appears that initially, on oral report dated 18.1.2009, a complaint was registered as FIR No.13/2009 at Brahmapuri Police Station, under section 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It was lodged by one Nilkanth Tulshiram Khobragade, contending that his daughter-Pranali committed suicide by jumping into the well, in the background that she had lost her mangalsutra. After this FIR was lodged, after two days on 20.1.2009 Pitambar Shankar Dongre, husband of the deceased, made another report that his wife had gone to answer the nature’s call and received electric shock as a result wire of fixed on the boundary of the agricultural field belonging to the applicant -Anandrao Darve and thereafter she was found in the well. It is the case of the prosecution that post-mortem notes also revealed that death of Pranali was due to cardiao-respiratory arrest, as a result of electric current burns. Thus, in the course of investigation, the applicant was implicated on the ground that he had caused homicidal death of Pranali and thereafter in order to destroy the evidence, threw her in the well. 3. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant police had forcefully obtained memorandum Panchnama under sec.27 of the Indian Evidence Act, in order to incriminate the present applicant on the accusation that he is responsible for the death of Pranali and threw her body in the well situated in the field of Yevandas Kharkhate. Thus, it is alleged that there was recovery of some electric wires from the border of fields of Kishan Avasare and Mangal Chikhankar. Learned Advocate for the applicant contended that, at this stage, though charge-sheet is filed except the alleged discovery made at the instance of applicant of electric wires, there is no other material to believe that applicant was responsible for homicidal death of deceased Pranali or that he threw her body in the well situated in the field of Yevandas Kharkhate. Learned Advocate for the applicant also contended that assuming that these allegations are true, the evidence of alleged discovery of electric wires from open place, could not be useful for the prosecution to prove the offence punishable u/s 304 Part II with Section 201 of the IPC, beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, according to the learned Advocate for the applicant, the possibility of his conviction in respect of serious accusation is remote ; the applicant is inside the prison since 25.1.2009 and is not likely to be convicted on the basis of such alleged discovery. 4. Learned APP relied upon the evidence of post-mortem notes as also discovery leading to recovery of wires; however, is not in a position to point out prima facie material to believe that the applicant was responsible for homicidal death of deceased Pranali or that he was involved in throwing her body into the well. 5. It is not in dispute that investigation is complete and charge- sheet is already filed leading to Sessions Trial No.58/2009 pending at Sessions Court, Chandrpaur. 6. Considering the nature of accusations as also the nature of material collected during investigation, prima facie, at this stage recovery of electric wire alone, at the instance of the applicant, by itself, may not help the prosecution to bring home guilt of the applicant. Of course, the question as to whether the applicant is guilty of serious accusation, will have to be considered after entire evidence is led by the prosecution on merits. Prima facie, at this stage, chances of conviction of the applicant appears to be remote, more particularly when the initial version of the prosecution was entirely different as father of deceased Pranali had lodged a complaint against her husband Pitambar and later Pitambar lodged a complaint against the present applicant. The suspicion howsoever is grave therefore, may not help the prosecution unless there is convincing material collected during the investigation. Prima facie, at this stage, it is difficult to believe involvement of the applicant for offence punishable u/s 304 Part II read with sec. 201 of the IPC. 7. Considering that the applicant is permanent resident of village Sonegaon Tq.Brahmapuri Dist.Chandrapur and by occupation an agriculturist having a permanent residence, he can be released on conditional bail, so as to ensure that he shall remain present at the time of trial. Hence the following order:- The applicant be released upon executing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount, with conditions that he shall inform his permanent address and phone number, if any, to the Investigation Officer and shall not try to contact any witness or witnesses pending disposal of the sessions trial and shall attend on each date of hearing in the sessions case. Application is disposed of. JUDGE sahare