1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1246 OF 2010 Damodhar Kaduji Dufake and others. ..Applicants V/s The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ..... Mr.N.K. Choudhari, Advocate for applicant. Mr.S.G. Nandedkar, APP for respondent. ..... (CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J.) DATE : 20th April, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr.N.K.Choudhari, learned counsel for applicant as well as Mr.S.G. Nandedkar, learned A.P.P. for respondent. 2. This is an application preferred by applicants seeking bail in connection with C.R. No.36/2010 registered with police station Gondi, Dist.Jalna for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 304-B, 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, since applicants were arrested therein on 10th February, 2010 and they 2 are under judicial custody presently. 3. It appears that offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by complainant namely Vithal Sakharam Mane i.e. father of the victim-Rukhminbai alleging that the marriage of Somnath and victim-Rukhminbai was performed on 15th May, 2009. The applicant no.1 is father-in-law of deceased Rukhminbai, applicant no.2 is brother-in-law of said victim. The contents of the complaint reflect that there are allegations in respect of ill-treatment and cruelty to which victim Rukhminbai was subjected at the hands of husband Somnath and applicant no.1-Damodhar i.e. father-in-law as well as mother-in-law namely Mainabai, sister-in- law namely Chavali and applicant no.2-Ram brother-in- law of victim. As well as there are allegations of unlawful demand of money of Rs.50,000/- made by applicants to be brought by victim-Rukhminibai from her parental house. So also, there are allegations in respect of abusing victim and keeping her hungry by the applicants as well as other co-accused persons. Ultimately, the said complaint further discloses that soon before the incident i.e. on 22nd February, 2010, 3 unlawful demand of Rs.50,000/- was made to the victim and her father i.e. complainant. Father of victim tried to convince Somnath i.e. husband of victim. Ultimately on 7th February, 2010, victim Rukhminbai was missing and her dead body was found on 08.02.2010 in a well in the field of Digambar Dufale. 4. It is seen that during the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded which raise fingers against applicants. The postmortem report shows that victim sustained four antemortem injuries and cause of death is not drowning but due to Haemorrhge shock due to internal brain haemorrhge however, exact cause of death is reserved till Viscera report from Chemical analyser, Aurangabad. The death of victim Rukhminbai occurred within short time of marriage, and therefore, apparently, presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act can be raised. 5. In the circumstances, it is apparent that investigation is still under progress and same has not been completed so far and therefore, there is no substance in the present application and same is 4 devoid of any merit. In the result, present application being sans merit, stand dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE gas/cri1246.10