1 CA5020/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5020 OF 2011 Sopan Raghunath Gandras Applicant V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the applicant Shri D.R. Kale, APP for the respondents / State CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 15th December, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Advocates of both sides. 2. The applicant is arrested in CR No 47 of 2011, registered with Mudkhed Police Station, District Nanded, under Sections 498-A, 304(B), 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code. 3. The applicant is the husband of Savitabai, who died on account of asphyxia due to drowning. Postmortem was conducted and doctor has certified the cause of death as mentioned aforesaid. F.I.R. is filed by one 2 CA5020/2011 Gangadhar Deorao Kawle, father of said Savitabai on 19th May, 2011. He has stated that on 19th May, 2011, in the afternoon, he came to know about demise of Savitabai on account of fall in the well. The F.I.R. narrates in detail as to how said Savitabai was subjected to harassment and in particular demand of Rs. 50,000/- for establishment of a shop by the present applicant. F.I.R. also indicates that some efforts were made to put an end to alleged cruel treatment meted out to Savitabai, however, all those efforts had failed. It is admitted by the complainant that a complaint was lodged before Mahila Takrar Niviran Samiti, and before said Samiti, parties had decided to stay happily, and thereafter, Savitabai had started residing at her matrimonial home. This happened sometime in the month of March, 2011. 4. If one peruses the statements which are recorded that of the father and mother of Savitabai and other near relatives, it is apparent that Savitabai was 3 CA5020/2011 treated with cruelty on small counts as well as major count i. e. demanding money for establishment of a shop by the present applicant. Learned Advocate for the applicant had submitted that after Savitabai had resumed cohabitation with the applicant in the month of March, 2011, there are no instances quoted in the F.I.R., and therefore, earlier allegations of cruelty cannot be used against the present applicant to show that an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is made out. 5. So far as charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, he submitted that the ingredients of said charge are not fulfilled and to that extent there is no overt act against the present applicant. So far as charge under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, he submitted that though the death of Savitabai has occurred on 19th May, 2011 i. e. within a period of seven years from the date of marriage, provisions of Section 304-B of the Indian 4 CA5020/2011 Penal Code are not attracted, as, according to him, there is no demand concerning dowry was made little prior to the death of Savitabai. Learned Advocate for the applicant prayed for bail on the ground that the applicant has normal place of residence and he will face the trial. 6. Learned A.P.P. submitted that a prima facie case is made for charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, and according to him, the cruelty which was practiced upon Savitabai resulted in bringing about the situation, by which Savitabai thought it fit to commit suicide and that is how the present applicant has abetted the commission of the offence. Learned A.P.P. had also submitted that on account of death of Savitabai within a span of seven years from the date of marriage, presumption will have to be drawn and that presumption can be rebutted by the applicant at the time of trial. On these grounds, he pressed for rejection of the application. 5 CA5020/2011 7. Having heard learned Advocates of both sides extensively, I am inclined to reject the application. The statements recorded that of the parents of Savitabai as well as other near relatives, clearly indicate that Savitabai was treated with cruelty on small counts as well as on major count viz. demand of Rs.50,000/- for establishment of shop by the present applicant. It is true that a reconciliation was made and accordingly Savitabai was staying with her husband from March, 2011. If one peruses the statements of parents of Savitabai, it is true that they have not mentioned any overtact committed by the present applicant as regards cruelty. 8. I am not inclined to accept the argument advanced by the learned Advocate for the applicant that in the absence of specific allegations as regards period after March, 2011, the applicant should be absolved so far as cruelty which is alleged to have taken place prior to March, 2011. Surely, even if it 6 CA5020/2011 is accepted for a moment that there are no instances quoted in the F.I.R., still commission of suicide by Savitabai shows that all was not well between applicant and Savitabai. It is possible that Savitabai may not have indicated various events taken place in her personal life between herself and the applicant after March, 2011. In the normal course a lady married recently will not commit suicide without any reason. The argument advanced by the learned Advocate for the applicant that prima facie case for charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out, cannot be accepted. The very cruelty inflicted upon Savitabai has resulted in bringing about a frame of mind which will have to be equated with abetment of suicide. 9. In view of above, I hold that prima facie case for charge under Section 498 (A) and 306 of the Indian Penal code is made out. 7 CA5020/2011 10. Looking to the language of Section 304-B of the Indian penal Code, a presumption will have to be drawn against the present applicant when the death has taken place within a span of seven years and that the death has taken place otherwise than under normal circumstances. Learned Advocate for the applicant had cited Judgment in the case of Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 2001-AWC-3-2667. I have perused the said Judgment. Even if the stand of the present applicant is accepted that prima facie case for charge under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code is not made out, still having held that prima facie case for charge Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. The Court will have to consider said aspect while deciding question of grant of bail. 11. Applicant is husband of Savitabai, since deceased. The incident had taken place on 19th May, 2011. Not even six months have elapsed from the date of the incident. In my view, the allegations 8 CA5020/2011 against the present applicant are certainly of a serious nature. He wanted to extract money from the innocent parents of his wife. Apart from this, right now if the applicant is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he would put pressure on the parents of the deceased as well as other witnesses who have spoken against him. Hence, application deserves to be rejected. In view of above, application stands rejected. 12. After the aforesaid order is passed, learned Advocate for the applicant prayed for early trial. Applicant is free to make an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for early trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge shall decide such application on merits. ( R.Y. GANOO, J. ) SRM/15/12/11