IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.824/2008 Ravindra Khapote ..vs.. State =================================== CORAM: S.R. DONGAONKAR, J. DATE:25.4.2008 Heard Mr. Kilor, Advocate for the applicant and Mrs. Khade, A.P.P. for state. This is an application u/s 439of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. Earlier application of the applicant was rejected granting liberty to the applicant to move for bail if the trial does not commence within a period of 3 months. That order was passed on 26.11.2007. It is contended that the trial has not commenced so far. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations of beating to deceased prior to her jumping into well is not established as there were no marks of injury on the dead body of the deceased, when she was taken out of well. The relevant part of inquest panchnama shows that the dead body was examined by panchas and there were no marks of any beating or injury on the person. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the other accused have been released on bail and therefore, considering partity, this applicant also needs to be released on bail, for that he relied on the observations of th Allahabad High Court in 1992 Cri.L.J. 1371 Shobha Ram ..vs.. State of U.P. As regards the marks of the injury, suffice it to say that as the body was taken out from the well i.e. from water, it is possible that the said marks of injury may not be noticed. As regards parity, it is needless to mention that the applicant is husband and other persons who are released on bail are the relatives of the applicant. No doubt the allegations against the applicant as well as those accused are similar, but ratio of 1992 Cri. L.J.1371 Shobha Ram ..vs.. State of U.P. cannot be applied to the present case as that case was in respect of the offences punishable u/s 302, 307, 452 of IPC. In matrimonial offences case of the husband can be certainly distinguishable from the case of the other relatives of the husband. Learned counsel for the applicant also contends that the offence u/s 304-B is not made out. No doubt there appears some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant, fact remains that the matter is now ripe for the trial and therefore, no final opinion on this aspect can be expected while considering the bail application. Deceased had committed suicide within few days of the marriage, reason as to why she should commit suicide has been contended to be the marriage against her will. But there is nothing to suggest this. It is informed by learned A.P.P. that trial is likely to be commenced. Hence the application is rejected, however with a liberty to move for bail if the trial is not completed within a period of 6 months from today. Inform trial court to expedite the matter. Application stands rejected. JUDGE smp