1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.347/2011. (Gajanan s/o Vasudeo Zalte Vs. The State of Mah. Thro. PSO PS Nandura, Dist. Buldhana) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. A.V. Bhide, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. for the Non-Applicant/State. Mr. Abhijit Deshpande, Advocate for assist to prosecution. ----- CORAM: U.V. BAKRE, J. DATE: 18 TH OCTOBER, 2011. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant, who apprehends his arrest in Crime No.109/2011 registered at Police Station Nandura, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has filed this application for anticipatory bail. 3. The complaint has been lodged by the father of the deceased alleging that the present applicant who is the husband of the deceased along with both the parents of the applicant and his two brothers, in furtherance of their common intention, were ill-treating the deceased Chhaya physically as well as mentally for demand of dowry and on 27.08.2011 the deceased died on account of cardio respiratory arrest due to poison. 4. According to the applicant, his wife Chhaya was 2 suffering from mental ailment and was behaving abnormal and that on 27.08.2011 at about 09-30 p.m. to 10-00 p.m. when the applicant was sleeping Chhaya woke up and told that she was not feeling well and thereafter she suffered from locked jaw and vehicle was hired and she was taken to the Doctor but she died. 5. Learned Advocate Shri Bhide argued that there is delay of about four days in lodging the report and that other three co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. 6. A perusal of the complaint lodged by Shantaram Kashiram Khavle, the father of the deceased reveals that all the accused had ill-treated his daughter Chhaya for demand of money on the ground of medical treatment to the son of Chhaya. The said complainant has specifically stated that on 27.08.2011 when he had gone to the Hospital he was told that Chhaya had expired and her dead body was kept in the morgue. He saw the dead body and found that there were marks on her hands and legs of having been tied and also there were marks of assault on her body. He found that there was no one from the family of the applicant present there. The complainant has further stated that he then met the applicant who told him specifically that since he could not fulfill the demand of money he administered poison to Chhaya and killed her and that they can do anything that they want. As far as the delay in lodging the report, Shantaram Khavle has explained the same by stating that his mental as well as physical condition was not proper and therefore, there was delay. 3 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon has released the other three co-accused because he did not find prima facie material against them. However, as far as the present applicant is concerned, he and Chhaya were residing together and there is no explanation from the applicant as to why immediately Chhaya was not taken to some nearest Hospital at Nandura. There is strong prima facie evidence against the applicant. Besides the above, the death has occurred within two and half years of the marriage of the deceased with the present applicant. Presumption under Sections 113-A and 113-B are available to the prosecution. 8. Learned A.P.P. has relied upon the case of Samunder Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1987 SC 737), wherein the Apex Court has held that when the matter regarding dowry death i.e. unnatural death of the daughter-in-law in her father-in-law’s house is under investigation, it is not prudent for the High Court to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, the application is rejected. JUDGE NSN