1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 41 / 2010 [Pravin Shankarrao Chaudhari vs. State of Maharashtra ) ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. N B Kalwaghe Adv. for applicant Mr S B Ahirkar APP for Respondent .......... CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : JANUARY 20, 2010. Heard. 2. The applicant prays for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 72/2009 reported at Chikaldhara Police Station, Dist. Amrvati u/s 304-B and 498A read with section 34 IPC, read further with sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The unfortunate incident had occurred in Utkarsha Hotel Chikaldhara on 13.10.2009 when applicant along with his wife had gone to Chikaldhara and she died as a result of consumption of insecticide (poison). The first informant (brother of the deceased) alleged that since beginning after victim Jyotsana married with the applicant Pravin on 27.6.2009, there were demands of precious metallica (i.e.gold) as according to the first informant, 10 tolas of gold was agreed to be given as dowry, but only 8 tolas could be given; while rest of two tolas was promised to be given after about 6 months and, on that 2 count, there were demands for rest of 2 tolas gold, which could not be complied with by parents and brother of victim Jyotsana. It is further alleged by the first informant that there were demands from the applicant and his father in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh for extension of their shop and two tolas of gold, which had remained to be given as dowry. According to first informant, due to repeated harassment from the husband and in-laws of victim Jyotsana, the first informant had to sell his residential house in Ramnagar, Yavatmal, some time in January,2009 in order to comply with the demand of Rs. 1 lakh from the applicant and his family members. The victim Jyotsana had been to Yavatmal some time in September, 2009 along with applicant Pravin ; but on 10.10.2009, the applicant /accused Pravin came to Yavatmal at about 9.00 a.m. and on the pretext of work, took her away. He also switched off her mobile to avoid any communication. They had returned on 11.10.2009. At that time, they had been to Shegaon. On 12.10.2009 on the pretext that Jyotsana will be taken to Doctor for medical examination, the applicant had taken her. When first informant tried to contact the couple on their mobile phones, they were found switched off. When the first informant went to Dr.Chavan's Hospital in search of his sister Jyotsana, she was not found in the Hospital. No information could be received even from the parents of the applicant and his relatives. On 13.10.2009 Jyotsana had communicated on mobile phone to the first 3 informant, informing him that they will return back in the evening; but later at about 9.30 a.m. first informant received phone call from Doctor at Chikhaldara informing that a lady and gents both are in serious condition and that he should rush to Chikaldara. Later Jyotsana died while the applicant was admitted in the Hospital. It was revealed that Jyotsana died due to consumption of poison. Thus, the complaint came to be lodged in respect of the incident of death of Jyotsana under suspicious circumstances. The investigating followed. 3. In the course of investigation it appears that certain statements of witnesses have been recorded indicating that there were demand for dowry and harassment for non-compliance of demands as also death of Jyotsana occurring within 7 years of her marriage, thus, attracting section 304-B of the IPC, which is punishable with imprisonment of minimum seven years which may extend up to imprisonment for life which also attracts presumption u/s 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act. Under these circumstances, accusation against the applicant appears to be serious although according to learned Advocate for the applicant he himself would not have consumed poison had he intended to cause death of his wife Jyotsana. Further, according to the learned Advocate, the applicant had taken Jyotsana to Chikaldara for the purpose of relaxation while according to accusation, the applicant had taken her to Shegoan returned along with her as the alleged plan was not 4 fructified he hatched another plan to take her to Chikaldara. Merely because applicant himself had consumed poison and intended to commit suicide cannot be a ground so as to find excuse for alleged dowry death of Jyotsana. 4. Learned APP contended that the finding which was used by the victim was, in fact, purchased by the applicant in the name of some other person, according but investigating agency. Learned Advocate for applicant pleads for bail on the ground that the applicant had in fact deposited sum of Rs. 50,000 /- by opening a bank account in Sept.2009 in the name of Jyotsana and furthermore he requires medical treatment because he had also consumed poison at the time of the incident on account of his love and affection for Jyotsana. Learned APP objected prayer for bail on the ground that investigation is still incomplete and charge sheet is yet to be filed. 5. Considering that a thorough investigation in suspicious circumstances as regards death of Jyotsana is required, as also considering the provisions of punishment for dowry death u/s 304-B of IPC as also statutory presumptions in connection with such offence, I am not inclined to grant bail in favour of the applicant pending investigation. However the applicant can apply for bail afresh after charge-sheet is filed and the trial Court shall deal with the same on its own merits after 5 considering the pros and cons of entire investigation. As regards treatment desired by the applicant, the Prison Authority to make adequate arrangement either inside the prison or in Govt. Hospital. Application is rejected. JUDGE sahare