1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3985 OF 2009 1. Digambar Daulat Giri, Age-59 years, Occu-Service, 2. Rajendra Digambar Giri, Age-32 years, Occu-Agriculturist, Both are R/o.Chowka, Tq. And Dist. Aurangabad APPLICANTS VERSUS State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.Joydeep Chatterjee, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for respondent/ State (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 27/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have prayed to release them on bail on connection with CR No.109/2009, registered in Phulambri Police Station for an offence punishable u/s. 323, 306, 498-A, 504, 506 r/w.34 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicants followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for State. Perused the 2 papers of investigation till carried out. 3. Considering the papers of investigation, this offence appears to be registered vide CR No.109/2009 in the Phulambri Police Station of District Aurangabad for the alleged offences. The alleged occurrence of the incident that the sister of the complainant by name Sunita consumed poison at the residence of her husband and while she was taken to Ghati Hospital for medical treatment, she succumbed to death, and thereafter the present offence came to be registered against the husband, the mother in law and these applicants who are father in law and brother in law of deceased. 4. During the course of submissions across the bar, it is urged that initially the offence is registered u/s. 306 r/w. other sections of IPC, then there must be some whisper about instigation or alleged incident which might have occurred which forced deceased Sunita to commit suicide by consuming poison, but on plain reading of complaint, no such incident is brought to the notice by way of disclosure of facts. It is also tried to point out that the statement of daughter of deceased appears to be recorded on 20/11/2009, wherein the case of prosecution tried to be projected that the deceased had not consumed the poison, but she was forced to take poison or these persons administered the poison to her, which resulted in her death. The bail is tried to be sought on the basis that considering the allegations in the complaint and the papers of investigation, allegations against these applicants are vague. So far 3 as no incident brought to the notice soon before the incident which gave rise to the alleged incident of consuming poison by deceased Sunita and late recording of statement of the child witness to be believed at this stage to establish the nexus between the act/role played by these applicants and the probable cause of death of the victim. 5. The application is vehemently opposed by the learned APP appearing for State that as according to him, the evidence collected during the investigation may not be disbelieved whether there is sufficient evidence to establish the guilt, but to be marshaled whether there is any prima facie evidence against the applicants accused. 6. Considering these rival submissions across the bar, one fact is clear that the death of deceased is an un-natural death. Whether the death is homicidal to attract section 302 of IPC or whether suicidal to attract Section 306 of IPC, is a matter of fact to be decided after the opportunity to be given to lead the evidence and to rebut the evidence lead by the prosecution. But at this stage, considering the probable cause of death due to poison, it is to be inferred that the death is un- natural death. Now to this un-natural death whether these applicants prima facie to be held responsible or not that is the point required to be solved after the effective trial. The statement about harassment to the deceased as disclosed in the complaint as well as recorded during the course of investigation do not find place that 4 immediately before the death of deceased occurred either suicidal or homicidal, there was instigation at the hands of these applicants or harassment at the hands of these applicants. So far as the statement of child witness recorded during the investigation is concerned, it is a fact that this statement appears to be recorded after about 45 days of occurrence of said incident. If this statement is read carefully and to be accepted as it is, then on the face of it, it is not in consistent with the answers given at the first place and at the last place as well as at the middle place. Then at least at this stage it can not be safely relied upon. In the premise, considering the vague allegations against these applicants, a case made out to enlarge the applicants on bail. Hence order - O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Both the applicants be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. After released on bail, the applicants to give attendance in the police station if required by the Investigation Officer in writing. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.appl.3985-09