IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.130 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.130 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.130 OF 2008 Smt Kisabai Vishnu Harale ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr Dinesh W. Bhosle, Advocate for the applicant. Ms M. H. Mhatre, A.P.P for the respondent. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. CORAM: V.C. DAGA,J. DATED: 11.4.2008. DATED: 11.4.2008. DATED: 11.4.2008. P P P.C. C. C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. Perused the application and the material available on record. 3. The applicant-original accused arrested in C. R. No. 33 of 2007, registered with Pandharpur Taluka Police Station for the offence under Sections 302, 498-A, read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., is seeking bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. 4. The factual matrix drawn in the order dated 18.8.2007 by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur reads as under:- "The applicants-accused are husband and wife. Accused no.1 Mahadeo is their son. It is not in dispute that the marriage of deceased Sujata had taken place with accused No.1 Mahadev on 11.5.2006. It reveals from the prosecution papers that at the time of unnatrual death deceased Sujata was residing at the house of the accused persons. It reveals from the record that only after 9 months of her marriage, Sujata died unnatural death. It reveals from the memorandum of Postmortem Examination that Sujata had sustained in all eleven burn injuries. Besides this she had also sustained contusion over her left thigh. She had also sustained to pinpoint injuries on her right forearm. As per the memorandum of postmortem Examination all these injuries were ante mortem. It reveals from the record that Sujata was found in an unconscious condition in a field. Sujata was residing along with accused. Therefore, the fact that under which circumstances, Sujata sustained burn and other injuries are within the special knowledge of the accused persons. The presumption under Section 113(B) of the Indian Evidence Act is also in favour of the prosecution. It prima facie reveals from the statement of the prosecution witnesses that soon before death all the acused were subjecting the deceased Sujata to cruelty for the fulfillment of their illegal demands of money. For all these reasons, I am of the view that there is strong prima facie case for the punishable under Sections 302, 498-A read with Section 34 of the I.P.Code against all the accused. The offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.Code is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, I am of the view that the applicants-accused should not be released on bail..." 5. According to the prosecution, the present applicant was one of the applicants in application No. 44 of 2007 which came to be rejected by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur. This fact has not been disclosed by the present applicant. In this view of the matter, for suppression of material facts, the application is rejected. 6. Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J) (V.C.DAGA,J)