1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4915 OF 2010 Shri Vivek Maruti Nale ...Applicant. v. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents. Mr. S.P.Kadam ,adv. For the Applicant. Ms P.P.Shinde, APP For the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JANUARY 27, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard. The applicant/accused seeks to be released on bail in crime no.67 of 2010 registered at Malshiras police station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304B, 498A r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C. 2 Prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased Smita was married to the present applicant on 1.5.2005 and after the marriage she went to live with her husband and in-laws, who formed a joint family. Shortly after the marriage, her husband and other relatives began to pressurise her to fetch an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the parents so that the present applicant could get a job. Therefore, she brought the money from her parents. Her gold necklace was also disposed off by the 2 applicant and with the said money, he secured a job of peon in Mahatma Phule Vidyalaya, Malshiras. According to the prosecution, even after that illtreatment continued and from time to time applicant and his other relatives used to make further demands. She was being physically and mentally harassed and finally on 24.5.2010, her deadbody was taken to the hospital by the present applicant where she was declared dead. Immediately on getting the information, Dnyaneshwar Parkhe father of the deceased lodged report making all the above allegations and offence was registered initially under Section 304B and 498A r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C. Post Mortem report reveals that Sunita had died due to asphyxia due to throttling. After that report, Section 302 IPC came to be added. 3 The learned counsel for the applicant contends that all the other accused have been already granted bail and the present applicant is in custody since 24.5.2010 itself. He also tried to point out that in view of the injuries found on the body of the deceased, it could not be case of throttling. At this stage, it is very difficult to accept his contention. Presuming that it was not the case of throttling and that Section 302 IPC would not be applicable, still case may fall under Sections 306 and 304B IPC in view of the allegations about the illtreatment meted out to the 3 deceased on account of demand of money by her husband. Offences under sections 306 and 304B are also very serious and it will not be in the interest of justice to grant bail to the present applicant merely because he is in jail for the last 8 months. 4 Therefore, the application stands rejected. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)