1 CRI.APPLN.NO.5316/2010 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5316/2010. (Santosh s/o Pandit Aage Vs. The State of Mah.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.SJ Salunke, Adv. for applicant; Mr.VH Dighe, APP for State. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 6 th January, 2011. ... 1) Heard. 2) The deceased Ashwini having married before fourteen months back, had to meet her last breath on 16th July, 2010. Prima facie, a show of hanging was illustrated, but post mortem notes exposed the situation, informing that it was a strangulation. This has been even supported by the panchanama. 3) The accused/husband, in custody, seeks release on bail on the ground that it was initially an accidental death recorded by cousin of the applicant and the belated F.I.R. of father cannot be taken to its logical end to rope in the accused/ 4) Mr.Salunke, learned Counsel for the applicant/accused also informed the 2 CRI.APPLN.NO.5316/2010 husband was not last seen with the wife, nor effect of Section 106 of Evidence Act can be put in acceleration to book the accused. He urged since the accused is in custody from 17.7.2010, he should be released on bail. 5) I have gone through the police papers; statements of several witnesses and narration of father of the deceased, including other relatives. The panchanama and the post mortem notes at this stage rebel against the contentions of the accused/applicant. It is unfortunate that the deceased, at the material time, was carrying female foetus of 7-8 months’. The gravity display that the tongue was inside. Though a situation, that there was no control over the room, was tried to be made or tried to take advantage of Section 106 of Evidence Act, however, that stage has not yet germane. The accused has to independently explain his role, as there is nothing to suggest that the deceased had any controversy with anybody in the world other than the accused or his family members. Release of other family members on bail need not be coined as parity, as has been clearly observed while entertaining the said bail application by this Court. 6) Taking survey of these facts, I do not 3 CRI.APPLN.NO.5316/2010 see any case to release the applicant/accused on bail is made out. Consequently, the application is rejected. The observations are prima facie in nature. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/