1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2988 OF 2010 Digambar Pralhad Yewale, Age-25 years, Occu-Agriculture, R/o/.Lalwadi, Ta.Ambad,Dist. Jalna APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, learned APP for State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 04/08/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.49/2010, registered in Ambad Police Station of Dist. Jalna, in which the applicant came to be arrested on 11/03/2010, and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 31/05/2010 in the Court of J.M.F.C. Ambad and numbered as RCC No.130/2010. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned APP for State. Perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 3. Before considering the submissions across the bar, it is 2 necessary to consider the opinion given by the Medical Officer, who has conducted the autopsy. Probable cause of death is given by the medical officer as "Cardio respiratory arrest secondary to Asphyxial due to drowning". 4. It is to be noted during examination of the dead body that, no anti-mortem external injuries were found neither any internal injuries were noticed. These 2 observations played very material role to show at least on the face of it that there were no signs of physical torcher. 5. Considering further part of submissions across the bar, it can not be disputed that deceased Anita got married with Digambar Yevle on 06/05/2007. The death occurred in the incident of 09/03/2010, It appears from the spot panchnama that the deceased had been to fetch the water, where the alleged incident occurred. It is mentioned in the spot panchnama as well as transpired from the statement of one Bhausaheb Chaudhary, which was immediately recorded after the FIR was lodged, that the depth of the water is 2.5 feet. But apart from it, immediately after the incident, he took out Anita from the water and informed to others. The incident took place around 8.00 a.m. Question arose whether either in the complaint or the statement of witnesses whispered any untoward incident soon before the death of Anita. On clear perusal of the complaint, it revealed that before occurrence of the incident dated 09/03/2010, she was returned from her parents house on 08/02/2010. 15 days prior to 3 that, she had been to her parents house to attend the marriage of her younger sister. It is alleged that at that time, she was threatened not to return the matrimonial house unless payment of balance amount of dowry and on that count, there was harassment. On 18/02/2010, the husband of applicant had been to the parents house of deceased. Even accepting the statement as it is in the complaint, it is pointed out to this Court that at that time, husband has not demanded anything either from the deceased or from the parents of deceased. So far as earlier occasion is concerned, there are some allegations, but they can not be termed as the instigation soon before the incident. Considering this aspect, and the aspect, whether there was any mental torcher or not, it is to be decided at the time of trial as now the charge sheet is filed, and there are no chances of tampering of prosecution evidence, hence order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicant be released on bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. After released on bail, applicant not to contact the witnesses of prosecution. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/AUG 2010/cri.appl.2988-10