{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2738 OF 2010 Bharat Eknath More APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mrs. S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for the applicant Mr. P.P.More, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 29th July 2010 PER COURT: 1. By preferring this criminal application, the applicant has prayed to release him on bail in connection with CR No. 16/2010 registered with Tembhurni police station for an offence punishable u/s 498-A, 304 (b), r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as the applicant is in jail since 25.03.2010. 2. It is informed that in this offence, after completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed before JMFC, {2} Jafrabad on 12.05.2010. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation, particularly the PM notes. The PM notes indicate that the probable cause of death of deceased Pratiksha is “due to drowning”. 4. The relations between applicant and deceased, as husband and wife, are not disputed. Even it is not disputed that their marriage was performed prior to 3 years of the alleged incident. It is also an admitted fact that the couple was blessed with a son. It is alleged in the complaint that at the time of marriage of applicant with Pratiksha, a dowry in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- was fixed and out of which Rs.30,000/- were paid and Rs.20,000/- were balance. It is alleged that the victim, Pratiksha was being harassed by the applicant and others on the count of balance of dowry. The alleged incident took lace on 24th March 2010. It is alleged that on 24th March 2010, the complainant had been to the house of deceased Pratiksha to bring her to her maternal house for certain festival. It is alleged that at that time, the applicant and his parents demanded the balance dowry from him and asked the complainant that unless the balance dowry is paid they would not allow him to take his daughter to celebrate the festival. Thereafter, it is alleged that, the complainant had left the house along with the son of the deceased in order to purchase some biscuits. It is alleged that thereafter on hearing commotion {3} he came to know that Pratiksha had jumped in a well followed by the applicant and when he came at the spot, he found that Pratiksha was in the lap of the applicant. The said incident happened within some minutes and hence it requires to be considered as to whether during such a short span can there be death by drowning. 5. Perusal of the spot Panchanama indicates that diameter of the said well is 20 X 20 feet, depth of the well is 25 feet and the water level was 6 feet. Considering these aspects it appears that certain facts are not coming before this Court in respect of cause of death of the deceased. Learned counsel for applicant has contended that the deceased has committed suicide as she was not allowed to accompany her father to her parents house. Thus, on trifling grounds if the girl has taken such a drastic step, then it will have to be considered during the trial as to whether she has committed suicide due to harassment for demand of dowry or in a fit of anger. In the premise, and as now the investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed, there are no chances of tampering or interference in the investigation by the applicant and hence the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail in connection with CR No.16/2010 registered with Tembhurni police station on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like {4} amount. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. 7. It is, however, made clear that these are the prima facie observations based on the papers of investigation and the learned trial court need not be influenced with the same at the time of conducting the trial. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2738-10