(1) CRI.APP. 3524.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3524 OF 2010 Ghansham S/o Chatursing Rajpurohit Age : 24 years, Occu.: Business, R/o Vidya Nagar, Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar .. APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Copy to be served on G.P. High Court Bench at Aurangabad .. RESPONDENT ... Mrs. Sadhana S. Jadhav, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 15TH OCTOBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. This is an Application for bail. 2. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APP. The investigation papers are perused. 3. From the investigation papers, it is prima facie explicit that deceased Shreya was a young girl and had developed friendship with the applicant which perhaps was transformed into intimacy. He was (2) CRI.APP. 3524.2010 infatuated towards her. He used to insist that he shall marry her. Her parents did not like their association with each other and, therefore, got the girl removed from the college while she was studying in 12th standard. The applicant allegedly was undaunted inspite of the understanding given to him by the parents of deceased Shreya that he shall not see her. On one occasion he had gone to meet her in the sweet-mart of her father. At that time he was assaulted by her uncle and was given a word of advice. Somewhere in 2008, he visited house of her parents and requested that he wanted to meet Shreya. He was not allowed to see her and father of Shreya drove him out of the house. It appears that Shreya came to know the reality that the applicant was a married person and was having a son borne out of the wedlock and, therefore, she was not ready to meet him. About couple of months prior to the incident, the bridegroom and his relatives had visited house of the parents of Shreya to see her in connection with the marriage proposal. She had also appeared for F.Y. B.Com. in the month of March, 2010. (3) CRI.APP. 3524.2010 4. The incident giving rise to the prosecution occurred on 15th April, 2010. It appears that deceased Shreya left the house at about 10.45 am. under the pretext that she would go to attend beauty parlour's course. She did not return home in the noon time. At about 4:30 pm her mother received a telephonic message to the effect that the applicant had assaulted Shreya at Hotel Guruprasad and was admitted in Saibaba Hospital at Shirdi. Therefore, she and her relatives went to the Hospital where she was found dead. There were multiple injuries on her person particularly on the neck and breast. 5. Considering the Police statements of Kaushalya Bankar and Tukaram Kadam who are the owner and the servant of Hotel Guruprasad Lodge, it is explicit that at about 1.00 pm. on day of the incident, deceased Shreya and the applicant went to the said Lodge and booked room no.108. They informed the owner of the lodge that they were planning to return immediately after taking bath and Darshan of the Samadhi of Saibaba. The Police statement of (4) CRI.APP. 3524.2010 Tukaram Kadam purports to show that at about 3.00 to 3.30 pm. he noticed that Shreya was coming down from the staircase in injured condition and she was scribed "I am assaulted. (eyk ekjys ! eyk ekjys !)". She was injured and smeared with blood. She fell down on the ground and became unconscious. The applicant also came down behind her. The owner of the lodge and PW Tukaram Kadam raised hue and cry. The persons gathered in response to their hue and cry, held the applicant and some of them took injured Shreya to Saibaba Hospital. 6. The post mortem notes leave no manner of doubt, prima facie, that deceased Shreya was assaulted by means of a sharp edged weapon. It appears from the P.M. notes that she died due to hemorrhagic shock caused by stab injuries to the liver and other parts of the body. There were in all three stab injuries and one incise wound on her person. It appears that right lung of deceased Shreya was punctured due to the stabbing. Needless to say, there were multiple injuries inflicted on her person by means of a sharp edged weapon. (5) CRI.APP. 3524.2010 7. It is pertinent to note that the applicant was immediately referred to Rural Hospital at Rahata after he was arrested by the Police. The medico legal certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Rural Hospital, Rahata prima facie shows that clothes of the applicant were found stained with blood. His hands were stained with blood. This is a tale- telling circumstance. 8. The learned Advocate for the applicant further submits that the applicant could have no intention to eliminate the deceased because he himself had rushed the injured Shreya to Saibaba Hospital. 9. At this juncture, mere entry in the medico- legal certificate issued by Saibaba Hospital about name of the applicant as person who had admitted injured Shreya in that hospital, by itself, is not sufficient to infer his intention. What transpires from the record is that the applicant and family members of deceased Shreya are members of the same community and run business of sweet-mart. He was insisting to marry her but her family members had (6) CRI.APP. 3524.2010 declined the proposal and had prohibited them from meeting each other. It further appears that deceased Shreya also was dis-illusioned when she came to know that he (applicant) was married and was having a son. Inspite of her refusal to meet him, he seems to have organised the meeting at Shirdi, may be under the pretext that he wanted to explain the circumstances and remove her mis-understanding. It cannot be overlooked that the bridegroom and his family members had visited house of the parents of deceased Shreya in order to see her as prospective bride. This prelude to the incident is important because the applicant thereafter got more annoyed because of her marriage likely to be performed with someone else. The FIR show that he had threatened deceased Shreya that if she will not marry him, then he would eliminate her and will not allow her to become anybody else's wife. The threat given by the applicant perhaps was not seriously taken by deceased Shreya. The very fact that he called her at Shirdi and they were together in room no. 108 which was admittedly booked by him and that she came crying (7) CRI.APP. 3524.2010 down near the counter of the lodge within a short while, having multiple stab wounds and the applicant also immediately came down behind her are the most significant circumstances. It can be gathered, prima facie, that he eliminated her because she declined to marry him and he realised that she will become wife of someone else and his marriage prospectus with her were rather bleak. 10. In this view of the matter, the applicant has forfeited right to remain free during the course of trial. 11. The Application is dismissed. The observations made in this order are only prima facie observations and the Sessions Judge may decide the matter after the full fledged trial on its own merits. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp