3108appln1244.10.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1244 OF 2010 (Vijay Gangaram Shinde 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. SC Bhalerao, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. AS Parihar, A. P. P. for the respondent-State. CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 31st August, 2010. Heard. By this application, the applicant prays for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 76/2010 registered at Police Station Wani. for the offence punishable under Section 304-B, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code The learned Advocate for the applicant contended that all other co-accused have been granted bail. It is alleged that the deceased was beaten on 15/4/2010 by the present applicant and that she died on 22/4/2010 while she was receiving medical treatment in the hospital at Yeotmal. According to the learned Advocate, the medical case record in respect of deceased Yamuna indicate that she was patient suffering from severe anemia with history of fever. She was also carrying six months’ pregnancy and the doctor had observed that deceased had fever with chills, there were no foetus movements & trauma over the abdomen was noticed. The complainant herself had executed a consent letter in favour of the doctor after the doctor had given prior idea about ailments i.e. want of movements of foetus, anemia and consented 3108appln1244.10.odt 2/3 that medical treatment can proceed and Yamuna, who had executed the consent letter would not hold anybody or the doctor responsible for loss of life of the patient, if it so happens. The learned Advocate for the applicant contended that had the applicant assaulted the victim Yamuna, as alleged, she would have made complaint to the doctor treating her in the hospital. However, the learned A. P. P. is unable to point out as to whether any statement of doctor, who has treated the deceased, has been recorded in the course of the investigation regarding alleged history of assault before she was admitted in the hospital. It is also noteworthy that alleged assault had occured on 15/4/2010, the victim died on 25/4/2010 but the F. I. R. was not lodged till 04/5/2010. In these circumstances, merely because the Court below had received some letter on 15/5/2010, I think, benefit of bail could not have been denied to the applicant particularly when there appears no investigation in connection with the statement made by the patient to the doctor while she was alive. Although the accusations are serious in nature that a pregnant lady was assaulted within a year of her marriage, the material investigation must indicate plausibility of such complaint which must be made without unreasonable delay. Necessary material collected in the course of investigation must positively pin point prima-facie involvement of the applicant in such serious crime. Be that as it may, the above observations are made only for the purpose of deciding this bail application and the trial Court shall hear the trial on merits and dispose of it in accordance with law as early as possible. In the meanwhile, I am inclined to grant conditional bail 3108appln1244.10.odt 3/3 in favour of the applicant. The applicant be released on bail on his executing P. R. Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties in the equal amount, provided further that the applicant shall not commit any crime while on bail. He shall not tamper with the evidence of any witness/witnesses in any manner and he shall inform his fixed address with telephone/ mobile number and change, if any, to the Investigating Officer. The applicant shall attend the trial Court on each date of hearing and he shall not misuse the liberty in any manner during the pendency of the trial. The application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE wwl