1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1551 OF 2010 1 Smt. Saradha Suresh Chindarkar 2 Smt. Sunita Uday Chindarkar 3 Miss Dhanashree Suresh Chindarkar 4 Mr. Milind Suresh Chindarkar ...Applicants. v. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5698 OF 2010 Shri Milind Suresh Chindarkar ...Applicant. v. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.198 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1551 OF 2010 1 Smt. Saradha Suresh Chindarkar 2 Smt. Sunita Uday Chindarkar 3 Miss Dhanashree Suresh Chindarkar 4 Mr. Milind Suresh Chindarkar ...Applicants. v. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents. And Mr. Nandkumar Liladhar Nagotkar ..Applicant/Intervenor. Mr. K.S.Patil ,adv. For the Applicants. Mr. S.A.Shaikh, APP For the Respondent/State. 2 Shri Anand Mishra i/by Shri A.M. Sarogi, advs. For the intervener in Cri. Appln. No.198/2010 in Cri. Appln. No.1551/2010 present in Court. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JANUARY 27, 2011. P.C. 1 First two applications are filed by the accused persons for bail in crime no.51 of 2010 registered by Samata Nagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of the IPC. Criminal Application No.198 of 2010 is filed by the father of the deceased for intervention and to oppose the bail applications. In the interest of justice, he is allowed to intervene and the application stands disposed off. 2 It may be noted that earlier accused nos.1 to 4 had filed Criminal Application No.1551 of 2010. Applicant no.4 Milind is husband of the deceased, applicant no.1 Saradha is his mother, applicant no.2 Sunita is his aunt and the applicant no.3 Dhanashree is his unmarried sister. The applicant nos.1 to 3 were granted interim bail but that benefit was not given to the accused no.4. Therefore, application for applicant no.4 was not pressed at that stage and he filed Criminal Application No.5698 of 2010 for bail, separately. 3 Undisputed fact is that Shubhada was in love with the applicant/accused Milind and with consent of both the families, their 3 marriage was performed on 20.4.2008 and after the marriage, she was living in the joint family of her husband. She was also working as air- hostess and as per material collected during the investigation, she had come back from the duty on 16.2.2010 at about 10 p.m. or so and thereafter, she had also dinner with her husband. Next morning, i.e., on 17.2.2010 at about 5 a.m. Aishwarya, aged about 13 years, who is cousin of Milind, woke up to prepare to go to school. The mother of Milind was also to go to duty. According to Aishwarya when she woke up, door of the enclosed balcony was closed from inside. She knocked the door because her clothes were inside that balcony but door was not opened. Then she gave a call to Milind. Milind, his mother and others came there and door was forcibly opened and body of Shubhada was found hanging with the fan with the help of dupatta or scarf. Immediately, information was given to her father by Milind. Dupatta was cut and dead-body was brought down. P.M. Report reveals that it was the case of suicide due to hanging. According to the prosecution, a suicide note, purporting to have been written by the deceased Shubhada, was handed over by the accused Milind to her father, who produced the same before the police. Suicide note does not indicate the reason for suicide. However, it only says that she deeply loved her husband and he was not responsible for her death. 4 As per this note, she was frustrated of her incomplete life. According to the prosecution, accused Milind told the police that said suicide note was found lying on the table in the room, where the deadbody was found. 4 Father of the deceased was not willing to believe that suicide note was genuine. As per the directions given by this Court from time to time, report of the handwriting expert was called. According to him, it was forged and her husband and other relatives had committed her murder by strangulating her. In view of this, police had obtained specimen handwriting and signatures of the accused persons. Father of the deceased also provided some note-books and other handwriting of the deceased. Handwriting Expert report reveals that suicide note does not appear to be in the handwriting of the accused persons. However, for the several reasons given in the report, handwriting expert report also reported that it was difficult to say positively if the suicide note was or was not in the handwriting of the deceased. During the investigation, no reason was found as to why accused persons would commit murder of Shubhada. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. In view of the above circumstances and particularly post mortem report and the disputed suicide note, I do not see any valid reason to detain the accused persons in the jail pending the trial. 5 5 In view of the above, interim bail granted to three accused persons namely, Saradha, Sunita and Dhanshree is hereby confirmed. Accused/applicant Milind be released on his executing PR in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount with the condition that he shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. 6 All the three applications stand disposed off. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)