(1) CRI.APP. 3942.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3942 OF 2010 1. Sonyabapu S/o Bahu Zadage, Age : 60 years, Occu.: Police Patil and Agriculture, 2. Dnyaneshwar S/o Sonyabapu Zadage, Age : 30 years, Occu.: Agri., Both R/o Pimpale, Tq. Sangamner, District Ahmednagar .. Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Copy to be served on G.P. High Court Bench at Aurangabad .. Respondent ... Mr. Sadhana S. Jadhav, Advocate for the Applicants Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 14TH OCTOBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. The Application is for bail. 2. The learned Advocate for the applicants seek withdrawal of the Application to the extent of applicant no.2-Dnyaneshwar who happens to be husband of deceased Sunita. Thus the Application is required to be considered only in respect of applicant no.1- Sonyabapu. (2) CRI.APP. 3942.2010 3. The incident involving the applicants did occur on 7.9.2010. Deceased Sunita was married to the applicant no.2 Dnyaneshwar on 29.5.2010 in the course of a ceremony wherein several community marriages were performed. The FIR purports to show that she was given good treatment by husband and his relatives for about one month. The FIR is lodged by father of deceased Sunita. It is alleged that the husband and his relatives were demanding Rs. 2 Lakhs for development of a orchard of pomegranate and construction of a new house. On account of non- fulfillment of such demand, she was being subjected to matrimonial cruelty by them. She narrated the trouble given to her by them when her sister Sarika had visited the house of the applicants on 5.9.2010. On 7.9.2010, her father received information that dead body of Sunita was found in the well situated in the agricultural land gat no. 335 which was being cultivated by the applicants. 4. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant no.1-Sonyabapu and the learned APP. Perusal of the (3) CRI.APP. 3942.2010 investigation papers would show that death of deceased Sunita was due to asphyxia caused on account of drowning. The spot panchanama shows that the well had no parapet wall. There was water to the extent of optimum level. It was noticed by the panchas and the Police on the three sides of the well the debris and the earth excavated from the well was stacked. It was also noticed by the panchas and the Police that for going down inside the well there was a slanted place on northern side. In other words, there were no steps to go down in the well and there was slope on the northern side. There is no eye witness account about the incident. One cannot overlook the probability of accidental fall of deceased Sunita in the well while making attempt to enter the well from the northern side by going down from the slope. 5. The investigation papers do not show any particular instance of cruelty alleged against the applicant no.1-Sonyabapu. There are omnibus allegations made against the husband and his relatives. The Police statement of Sarika, real (4) CRI.APP. 3942.2010 sister of deceased Sunita, also reveals that there are general allegations made against the applicant no.1 about the alleged demand for money and the cruelty meted out to deceased Sunita. It appears from copy of the prescription (Exh. 'A') that on 1.9.2010 deceased Sunita was treated by a psychiatrist for complaints of insomnia. 6. The Investigation Officer may conduct necessary investigation about the medical problem however, it has no direct relation with the cause of death of Sunita. The applicant no.1-Sonyabapu appears to be old aged person. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant no.1-Sonyabapu submits that the applicant no.1 will not enter the limits of village Pimple until the investigation and the trial is over. 7. Considering the foregoing discussion, the Application to the extent of applicant no.1-Sonyabapu is granted. He is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds in sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) with one solvent surety bond in the like sum and further condition that he (5) CRI.APP. 3942.2010 shall undertake to refrain himself from entering limits of village Pimple during the period of investigation and during the period of trial of the Sessions case. The undertaking shall be furnished simultaneously while furnishing bail bonds before the Court of Sessions. He shall make no attempt to contact any of the prosecution witness and tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. The Application to the extent of applicant no.2- Dnyaneshwar stands dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp