{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2563 OF 2010 Rangnath Kishan Sase and Another APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.Joydeep Chatterjee, Advocate for the applicants Mrs.V.A.Shinde, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 19 th July 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present criminal application, the applicants who are father in law and brother in law of deceased Jyoti have prayed to release them on bail in connection with CR No.204/2010 registered with Pathardi police station, as they are in jail since 27 th May 2010, as the attempts of the applicants to get themselves released on bail could not succeed, they are before this Court. It is informed that after completion of the investigation charge sheet has been filed before the JMFC, Pathardi. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by {2} learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation. 3. It is clear from the Postmortem notes, conducted on the dead body of deceased Jyoti, that her death is homicidal. Papers of investigation disclose that the death occurred in the matrimonial house of deceased. Relations between the applicants and the deceased are not disputed. Perusal of the complaint and the statements of the witnesses demonstrate that there were illegal demands at the hands of the applicants and other relatives of the deceased, as no sufficient dowry was paid in the marriage of the deceased. It appears that on the day of the incident, parents of the deceased had been to a cloth store to purchase clothes for the marriage of younger sister of the deceased. It is alleged that the applicants had been to the said shop and demanded a gold ring or an amount equivalent to a gold ring. When the demand was not satisfied, the applicants, it is alleged, had threatened that the complainant would have to suffer dire consequences. It is alleged in the complaint that in the same evening neighbour of the deceased informed the complainant, father of the deceased, that he saw some smoke was coming out from the house of the deceased. It is further alleged that hence he rushed to the house of the deceased as he also reside in the same village. It is alleged that it was noticed that the door of the house was bolted from outside and hence bolt was removed and the complainant entered inside where he saw the deceased in partly burnt condition and therefore, she was taken to a hospital where she expired and on her oral dying {3} declaration disclosed to her father, the complaint came to be lodged and the applicants came to be arrested. 4. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the applicants invited my attention to the spot Panchanama, which was prepared on the next day of the incident. The spot Panchanama indicates that one of the plank of the door was required to broke opened. It is urged that if the theory of the incident, as alleged in the complaint, to be accepted, then the doors must have been unlatched and then only one could have entered in the house and it must not have been broke opened and hence it is contended that the door was not bolted from outside. Another limb of submissions is that at the time of alleged incident, applicant No.2 was on duty at about 50 km away from the spot of the incident. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicants has tendered attendance sheet maintained at the factory where applicant No.2 is in service so also he has annexed a communication from the Manager, Suyash Engineering. Thus, it is contended that applicant No.2 was not present at the place at relevant time. 5. Though the bail application is opposed by the learned APP, yet considering spot Panchanama, which was prepared on the next day of the incident coupled with the communication of the employer of applicant No.2, it appears that the applicant No.2 was not present at the spot of incident at the relevant time, case is {4} made out to enlarge the applicants on bail. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. Both the applicants be released on bail on their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each and on executing PR bonds in the like amount, if not required in any other offence. It is made clear that the present applicants are released on bail in peculiar circumstances and the above observations shall not be treated as a ground for parity to release the co-accused on bail. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2563-10