1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Criminal Application (ABA) No. 270/2011 Sau. Pramila W/o. Ramdas Khadatkar and another Vs. State of Maharashtra =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. Anand Deshpande, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. P.D. Kothari, APP for the non-applicant. CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 17/08/2011. 1] Heard learned Advocate Mr. Anand Deshpande appearing for the applicants and learned APP Mr. P. D. Kothari appearing for the State. 2] This is a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicants, who are respectively the mother and sister of the husband of deceased Rakhi, who apprehend their arrest in Digras Police Station Crime No.69/2011, registered for offence punishable under Sections 306, 498-A, 304-B and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). 3] It is seen that the marriage of deceased Rakhi with Amol Khadatkar was solemnized on 1/11/2009 and that death of Rakhi took place on 20.6.2011 i. e. within seven years from the date of her marriage on account of which the presumption under Section 113-A as well as 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act is applicable. 2 4] Though it was alleged in the oral report filed by the father of the deceased that she died on account of consuming poison on 14.6.2011, however, the post-mortem examination report reveals that the cause of death of Rakhi was due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of rupture of liver with haemoperitoneum. As far as the poisoning is concerned, viscera has been preserved and has been forwarded to the Chemical Analyser but the report has not been reportedly received as yet. 5] The oral report filed by father of the deceased reveals that the deceased was being harassed mentally for bringing money from her parents. In the oral report also there is mention of harassment by the two applicants on the ground that Rakhi had not brought money from her parents. 6] The statement of one of the witnesses namely Anil Gahukar, fully corroborates the oral report and he has directly implicated both the applicants. 7] There is, therefore, prima facie evidence against the applicants in view of the statements of witnesses and in view of the cause of death. In my view, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 8] Hence, the application is rejected. JUDGE Ambulkar