- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2457/2010 1] Ulhas s/o Sambhaji Ghodam, age 45 yrs., occu.service, r/o Umari (Ba.) Tq.Kinwat Dist.Nanded. 2] Suhas s/o Sambhaji Ghodam, age 48 yrs., occu.agril., r/o Umari (Ba.) Tq.Kinwat Dist.Nanded. ...Applicants.. Versus The State of Maharashtra through Police Station, Mandvi, Tq.Kinwat Dist.Nanded. ...Respondent... ..... Shri S.J. Salunke, Advocate for applicants. Shri D.V. Tele, APP for respondent. ..... CORAM: A.V. POTDAR, J. DATE: 07.07.2010 - 2 - PER COURT: 1] By the present application, the applicants – husband and brother-in-law of deceased Ranjana have approached this Court for their release on bail in connection with Crime No.8/2010 registered in Mandvi Police Station of Dist.Nanded for the alleged offence u/s 302, 498-A, 114 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. In which both these applicants came to be arrested on 14.2.2010. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of J.M.F.C., Mukhed on 10.5.2010. As the attempts of these applicants became unsuccessful to get them released before the Courts below, the applicants are before this Court. 2] Heard counsel for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. for the State and perused the papers of investigation. 3] It is not under dispute that the deceased Ranjana is the wife of the first applicant and the applicant no.2 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. It is also not under dispute that the marriage of the first applicant with deceased Ranjana was solemnized somewhere in the year 1995. Out of this wedlock, the applicant no.1 and the deceased have two sons and one daughter. Name of the daughter is Santoshi. She is taking education in the Ashram school. Papers of investigation further reveal that due to matrimonial dispute between the first applicant and the deceased, somewhere in the year 2007, the deceased left the matrimonial house - 3 - and started residing with the parents. It further appears that this dispute between the first applicant and the deceased was resolved and under request of the first applicant, the deceased Ranjana returned to her matrimonial house. During her stay in the house of parents, the deceased took education to stitch the clothes. She returned back to her matrimonial house on 11.2.2010. At that time, father of the deceased had provided the sewing machine along with electric motor to operate the said sewing machine. This position is reflected from the statement of witnesses from the parental side of the deceased Ranjana. 4] It further appears that this unfortunate incident of death of Ranjana occurred in the evening on 12.2.2010 i.e. the day of Maha Shivaratri. At that time, daughter of deceased and first applicant by name Santoshi were present at the residential premises. Papers of investigation further disclose that statement of electrician, who installed electric motor to the sewing machine, was also recorded, which reflects that after the electric motor was installed to the sewing machine, it was tested, but that test was not completed for want of power supply. This fact reflected in the statement of electrician is supported by the letter collected from M.S.E.B. by the investigating officer that on the earlier day since morning till late in the evening, there was no power supply in that area. 5] The unfortunate incident that Ranjana received electric shock due to which when she was admitted in the hospital, she succumbed to death. It is to be noted that after preparing the inquest on the dead body, post mortem was conducted. It - 4 - is opined by the medial officer, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ranjana, that the probable cause of death was “cardiac respiratory arrest due to electric shock”. Thus, at least at this stage, it can not be disputed that the deceased received cardiac arrest due to receipt of electric shock. While deciding bail application, it is required to be considered as to whether this electric shock was an accidental shock or it was an intentional and deliberate shock managed against the deceased, as alleged by the complainant. The statement of daughter of deceased Ranjana is useful to consider this aspect. According to the sole eye witness, who was present at the time of alleged incident, speaks a lot on this count. According to the witness, as it was the day of Maha Shivaratri, after taking light food prepared by the deceased, the first applicant went outside along with his son to the barbour’s saloon. At that time, the deceased was cleaning the house and in that process, she came in contact with the said sewing machine. As sufficient time was over and as the deceased was not coming outside from that particular room, daughter Santoshi went inside the room and noticed the deceased lying in unconscious condition near the sewing machine. On hearing shouts, neighbours came, took the deceased to the hospital where she was declared dead. 6] The evidence collected during investigation prima facie shows that there are some reasons to believe that the shock may be an accidental shock. In view of this, case is made out to enlarge the applicants on bail on certain conditions. - 5 - 7] Application is allowed. Both the applicants be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each and on furnishing P.R. Bond in the like amount. Application stands disposed of accordingly. It is made clear that the observations of this Court in this order are prima facie observations based on the papers of investigation. The learned Sessions Court before whom the trial will be assigned for final hearing should not be influenced by any of the above observations. (A.V. Potdar, J.) ndk/cr771015