1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1095/2010 (Pravin s/o Shankarrao Choudhary vs. State of Maharashtra ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr R M Daga , Adv.for applicant Mr D M Kale, APP for Respondent CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 5 th August, 2010. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties, at length. 2. By way of this application, the applicant prays for grant of bail in connection with Crime no. 72/2009 registered at Chikhaldhara Police Station Dist. Amravati for offence punishable under sections 498A, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended that while deciding Criminal Application No. 41/2010, this Court had observed that investigation was incomplete and charge-sheet was yet to be filed, as stated by the learned APP. That being so, this Court was not inclined to grant bail in favour of the applicant pending the investigation. However, liberty was granted to the applicant to apply for bail afresh after charge-sheet is filed and the trial Court was directed to deal with the same on its own merit, considering the pros and cons of the entire investigation. The applicant had availed of liberty to approach the trial Court by means of Criminal 2 Misc. Criminal Application No. 167/2010 in which, by order dated 28.6.2010 the bail was rejected by passing the following order: I. Misc. Criminal Application No.167/2010 stands rejected. II. The parties shall expedite the trial in ST No. 39/2010 for speedy disposal according to law.” 3. This order was passed on 28.6.2010. Even till today according to learned Advocate for applicant, no charge has been framed in the sessions trial; whereas CA report as well as well as muddemal property is still awaited. Thus, according to learned Advocate for applicant, the trial is not likely to commence in the near future. 4. Learned Advocate for applicant invited my attention to FIR which was recorded by Chikhaldhara Police Station as FIR No.72/2009 on 16.10.2009 in respect of the incident which alleged to have occurred between 12.10.2009 and 13.10.2009. It is contended that the accusations in the FIR were of general nature against as many as six different accused who are the family members of the applicant regarding alleged demand for dowry. 5.. Learned APP states that statement of different witnesses were recorded in the course of investigation. However, there was no documentary evidence, such as, handwritten documents like letters signed from the victim or documents written by the victim so as to prima facie impute criminal liability upon the applicant for alleged offences. 3 According to him, insecticide was purchased in the name of one Vikas Thakre, R/o Parwa; so also three receipts issued by Bhalerao Jewellers were sought to be relied upon. 6. Learned Advocate for the applicant placed reliance on Shamlal vs. State of Haryana: (2006) 1 SCC Cri. 344 and contended that in accusations under sections 364, 302 read with section 34 IPC four accused were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and they preferred an appeal. TheApex Court had considered suspension of their sentence and were granted benefit of suspension of sentence and bail, pending hearing and final disposal of the appeal. Further, reliance is placed upon the ruling in Subhash Natbuji Bhandare vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1209 in which in identical accusations under sections 304B, 498A read with section 34 IPC this Court was pleased to grant benefit of bail to the accused, pending hearing and disposal of the appeal. Therefore, it is contended that the applicant could have been released by the trial Court itself upon bail with or without conditions. 7. Perused the rulings (supra). Prima facie, it does appear that in the present case also, there is delayed FIR as the incident is alleged to have occurred on 12.10.2009 and FIR was recorded on 16.10.2009. It is, of course, for the prosecution to explain the delay. Furthermore, in the present case also, prima facie, it does not appear there is any documentary evidence, such as, letter from the victim to her parents or any handwritten documents by the alleged victim. 4 Moreover, it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that other co-accused, who are parents and brothers of the applicant, have already been released on bail. That being so, the applicant is also liable to be released on bail, of course, subject to certain conditions. Therefore,the following order is passed: The applicant be released in respect of Crime No. 72/2009 upon executing PR bond in the sum of R. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with two or more sureties in the equal amount, with conditions that the applicant shall attend the Sessions trial on each date of hearing; he shall not try to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner, and shall inform his address/change in address, if any, to the Investigating Officer as well as the learned trial Judge concerned and shall not commit any crime while on bail. Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Sahare