{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2172 OF 2010 1. Shobhabai Ankush Madke Age-37 years, Occ-Household 2. Ankush Ramrao Madke Age-40 years, Occ-Agri Both R/o Hiwra (Rala), Tq-Badnapur Dist-Jalna APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.Joydeep Chatterjee, Advocate for the applicants Mr.P.P.More, APP for respondent State Mr.Vijay Autade h/f Mr.V.D.Sapkal, Adv. for original complainant ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 24th June 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this application, the applicants, who are sister in law and husband of sister in law of victim Sangita, have prayed to release them on bail in connection with CR No.53/2010 registered with Badnapur police station for an offence punishable u/s 306, 498-A, 323, 504, 506, r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as they are {2} arrested on 23.04.2010 and since then they are in jail. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants followed by learned APP and learned counsel for original complainant. 3. It appears that the said offence is registered on the complaint of Sushilabai, mother of victim Sangita. Admittedly, Sangita had married to one Uddhav in the year 1999. It is also not disputed that out of the said wedlock two children, Atul and Akash have begotten. It is alleged that after the birth of second son, husband of Sangita developed illicit relations with one Lankabai and due to the said relations, there used to be frequent quarrels between deceased Sangita and her husband. It is alleged in the complaint that the present applicants, who are sister and brother in law of husband of deceased Sangita, used to cooperate or assist him in developing the illicit relations and on that count there was harassment of the victim, as she was protesting / objecting the said relations of her husband. The complaint further discloses that since 20th April 2010, said Sangita was missing and her dead body was found in a well, in agricultural field of her husband, on 21.04.2010, in decomposed condition. Thereafter, the parents came and the complaint is lodged against husband of Sangita, said Lankabai and the present applicants. 4. There is reference of one incident in the complaint, which is very material. It is alleged that soon before the alleged {3} incident, deceased Sangita was driven out of her house by her husband and hence she had been to her maternal house. It is also alleged that she stayed there for two days and thereafter, brother of deceased Sangita left her at bus stand and thereafter she boarded in the bus to her matrimonial house. This appears to be unnatural. For, if a lady has came back to her parents house complaining of harassment by husband and his relatives, stayed there for some days and when she returned to her matrimonial house, no one accompanied her from her maternal side or there was not even inquiry as to why she was driven out, which creates doubt about the veracity of the complainant. 5. Admittedly, the allegations in the complaint are that cause of death of Sangita is illicit relations of her husband and hence the offence cannot be termed as an offence punishable u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Secondly, offence punishable u/s 302 and 306 cannot run together. For, the ingredients to prove offence under these two sections are totally different. There is nothing on record to attract section 302, as the deceased was not seen in the company of present applicants soon before her death. So also, there is nothing on record to indicate that the present applicants had instigated or forced the deceased to commit suit, so as to attract section 306. In substance, the evidence before this Court is not sufficient to link the present applicants with the alleged offence. {4} 6. In the premise, though the application is vehemently opposed by learned APP and learned counsel for original complainant, yet case is made out to enlarge the applicants on bail. 7. In the result, the application is allowed. Both the applicants be released on bail in connection with CR No.53/2010 registered with Badnapur police station on their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each and on executing PR bond in the like amount. The applicants are directed to cooperate with the investigating agency and to attend the concerned police station whenever required on written requisition from the IO concerned. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2172-10 {5} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION STAMP NO.2410 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2172 OF 2010 Sushilabai Punjaram Marekar APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Vijay Autade h/f Mr.V.D.Sapkal, Advocate for the applicant Mr. P.P.More, APP for respondent State Mr.Joydeep Chatterjee, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 24th June 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard. Notice. Learned APP accepts notice for respondent No.1 and Mr.Joydeep Chatterjee accepts for respondents No.2 and 3. 2. By this application, u/s 301 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant, original complainant has prayed to allow her to assist the APP in opposing criminal application No. 2172/2010, for which there is no objection from the respondents. {6} Consequently, the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause “A” and “B” and stands disposed of. Prayer clause “C” cannot be considered in this application. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2172-10