1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2050 OF 2010 1 Balu Bansi Gaikwad, 2 Sumanbai Bansi Gaikwad ...Applicants VERSUS State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri Joydeep Chatterjee, advocate for the applicants Shri S.D.Kaldate, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 23 rd June, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri Joydeep Chatterjee, advocate for applicant nos. 1 and 2, and Shri S.D.Kaldate, A.P.P. for respondent. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant nos. 1 and 2 seeking bail in connection with C.R. No. I-113 of 2010, registered with police station Pathardi, District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable 2 under Sections 306, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, since the applicants were arrested thereunder on 2.4.2010 and they are under judicial custody presently. 3 It is a matter of record that applicant nos. 1 and 2 had preferred bail application earlier i.e. Criminal Application No. 1596 of 2010 before this court, but same was rejected by this court vide order passed on 4.5.2010 i.e. before filing charge sheet observing that since investigation was not completed and was in progress, it was not desirable to enlarge the applicants on bail at that stage i.e. before filing the charge sheet. 4 Now, both learned counsel for the parties submitted that charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons on 10.5.2010 and thereafter the applicants have preferred the present application for bail. 5 It appears that the offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant namely Namdeo Sayaji More on 1.4.2010. Applicant No 1 Balu is the son of applicant no. 2 Sumanbai and deceased Chandrakalabai was wife of the complainant namely Namdeo Sayaji More; and applicant no.2 Sumanbai is wife of brother of deceased Chandrakalabai namely Bansi. 3 6 It is alleged in the complaint that on account of use of access road to the field of complainant, the applicants used to abuse and threaten the complainant and his wife namely Chandrakalabai. It also appears from the complaint that on 12.2.2010 the applicants herein along with co-accused Bansi obstructed the complainant on the road on account of access to the field and abused, threatened and assaulted him by leg kicks and fist blows on 12.2.2010 at 11.00 a.m. as well as at 6.00 p.m. on the said date. It is alleged that on 30.3.2010 when the complainant and his wife Chandrakalabai were at their home, the applicants and co-accused Bansi went to their house and threatened them not to use the access road through their field, and abused, threatened and assaulted them by leg kicks and fist blows and ultimately it is alleged that Chandrakalabai was fed up with the said harassment at the hands of applicants and co- accused and committed suicide on 31.3.2010 by hanging herself in the house and accordingly allegation against the applicants is abetment for committing suicide by way of harassment and illtreatment. 7 It is also pointed out that one Deubai Uttam Gaikwad was the eye witness to the occurrence of the afore said incident on 30.3.2010. 8 On the face of the said position, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant no.2 Sumanbai also lodged first information report against the complainant herein namely Namdeo Sayaji 4 More on 12.4.2010 in respect of the alleged threats and assault at the hands of complainant to Sumanbai. Learned counsel for the applicants also canvassed that the role attributed to the applicants herein in the incidents allegedly occurred on 12.2.2010 and 30.3.2010 appears to be comparatively of lesser degree than the role attributed to co-accused Bansi and at the most the offences can be attributed against the applicants under Sections 323,504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code; whereas the offences can be attributed against the co-accused Bansi under Sections 323, 504, 506 (Part II) and also under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no.2 Sumanbai is a woman and proviso to Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be attracted in her case. 9 However, learned A.P.P. posed the apprehension that if the applicants are enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of tampering the evidence and influencing upon witnesses, since the complainant and the applicants reside in the same village. 10 Having comprehensive view of the matter, and on perusal of the investigation papers and also considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent, admittedly it appears that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. Moreover, apparently there 5 appears to be substance in the argument canvassed by learned counsel for the applicants, since the roles attributed to the applicants during the occurrence of the alleged incidents dated 12.2.2010 and 30.3.2010 appear to be comparatively of lesser degree than the role attributed to the co- accused Bansi. Moreover, the fact cannot be ignored that applicant no.2 Sumanbai also lodged a first information report against the complainant namely Namdeo Sayaji More on 12.4.2010 under C.R. No. 50 of 2010. Moreover, applicant no.2 Sumanbai is a woman and her prayer is required to be considered in the light of proviso under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11 Apprehension posed by the learned A.P.P. can be very well met with by imposing necessary conditions in that respect, while releasing the applicants on bail. 12 Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that as the applicant nos. 1 and 2 are in custody since 2.4.2010 and since charge sheet has been filed after completion of investigation and also considering the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that there is no propriety in keeping the applicants in custody further more, and therefore, they are entitled to be enlarged on bail, but on imposing following conditions upon them. 6 13 Applicant nos. 1 and 2 be released on bail, in connection with C.R. No. I-113 of 2010, registered at Pathardi police station, District Ahmednagar, on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each and on executing P.R. bond by each of them in the like amount, on the following conditions :- (i) Applicant nos. 1 and 2 shall not tamper with the evidence and/or influence upon the witnesses directly or indirectly. (ii) Applicant nos. 1 and 2 shall not reside in the area of village Bhavarwadi, Taluka Pathardi, District Ahmednagar, till conclusion of the trial. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap2050.10