1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.685/2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.77/2011 Satish s/o Dilip Kharade Applicant V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra Respondent. Mrs. S.S. Jadhav Advocate for applicant. Mr. D.V. Tele APP for the respondent. CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 6 th APRIL, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. Petitioner/applicant herein prays for bail pending the hearing and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No.77/2011 filed by him. Appeal was admitted on 18.2.2011 by this Court, challenging the judgment and order passed in Sessions Case No.6/2010 by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. 3. According to the prosecution, appellant/applicant 2 Satish Kharade was serving in Military. Deceased Indubai was wife of the applicant who was blessed with children namely Pappu, Swapnil and Dhananjay out of her wedlock with the applicant. The prosecution alleges that applicant was demanding money for purchasing the vehicle. The father of the deceased had obtained loan of Rs.1,10,000/- from a patsanstha for being paid to the applicant for purchasing agricultural land before two days of the incident in question. Before 15 days of the alleged incident, the deceased Indubai had been to her father residing at village Rashin. Father of deceased noticed injuries on her person, she was taken to doctor for treatment. On inquiry deceased revealed that applicant demanded amount of rupees one lac for purchasing jeep. Father of deceased tried to pacify the applicant on the issue of demand and requested him not to harrash deceased Indubai. Father even promised that money would be arranged and thereafter Indubai was sent back to her matrimonial house. 3 4. It is alleged that on 13.9.2009 at about 7.00 a.m. applicant informed Jyotiram brother of deceased on cell phone that deceased had died. The father of deceased, Jyotiram, nephew Sachin reached Tikhi. They found injuries on the person of the deceased. Report Exh.13 was lodged. Crime No. 173/2009 came to be registered against the applicant for the offence punishable under section 302, 498-A of Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned Counsel Mrs. Jadhav for the applicant submits that applicant was serving with the Military. He is innocent. There are arguable issues raised in this appeal and pending hearing and final disposal of the appeal, if the applicant is released on certain conditions, the applicant would be in a position to look after his defence and family matters effectively. 6. Learned APP Mr. Tele submitted that applicant is accused of serious crime of committing murder of his wife in a brutal manner. Applicant being working in a disciplined force 4 had committed murder of his wife. Medical evidence is against the applicant. Applicant’s presence in the house and crucial time cannot be doubted. There is evidence on record against the applicant-accused. Learned APP, therefore, prayed for rejection of bail application. 7. We have perused original record and proceedings for the purpose of consideration of this bail application. We have perused medical evidence. Doctor had opined that deceased had suffered several injuries and cause of death was shown to be asphyxia due to throttling. The applicant was present in the house. There is a strong primafacie case against the applicant. The applicant was denied bail during the trial. 8. Considering all these circumstances, we are not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Application stands rejected. Record and proceedings be sent back to the trial court. ( T. V. NALAWADE ) ( NARESH H. PATIL ) JUDGE JUDGE ... aaa/685.11