1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2665 OF 2010 Shivaji S/o.Datta Berdewad APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.G.P.Shinde, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, learned APP for State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 20/07/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on regular bail in connection with CR No. 35/2010, registered in Bhokar Police Station, in which he came to be arrested on 20/03/2010, and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Thereafter, the trial was committed to the Court of Sessions initially at Sessions Court, Nanded which was numbered as Sessions Case No.89/2010. Recently, new Sessions Court in the Sessions Division at Nanded was opened at Bhokar and thus the sessions Case no.89/2010 was transferred to the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar and numbered as Sessions Case No. 57/2010. As the application of the present applicant was rejected by the court below, the present applicant is before this Court. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned APP for State. Perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 3. Applicant is the husband of deceased Swati, who got married with the applicant on 08/03/2010 and within just 12 days of her marriage, the deceased has to met with unnatural death as her body was found in the nearby field and the report of post mortem shows the probable cause of death due to poisoning. Admittedly, before the deceased got married with applicant, who is the daughter of paternal aunt of the applicant, in the month of March 2010, he had lost his first wife. Complaint as well as the papers of investigation discloses that certain dowry was fixed at the time of this marriage. At the time of marriage ceremony, 50% of the dowry amount was paid and the 50% was balance, for which the deceased was torchered at the hands of applicant and his family members. This recent trend is very unfortunate, as it is observed by this Court while dealing with the situation where it is noticed that the young brides are either burned alive or succumbed to poisoning within a short span of time. In this case, also within 12 days of her marriage, the deceased died un- naturally. 4. Section 106 of The Indian Evidence Act contemplates that if the death is occurred while the deceased was in the custody of the persons who are arrayed as an accused, then the burden lies on then to explain about the cause of death of deceased. The explanation 3 which is tried to offer is that the marriage of the deceased with applicant was performed against her wish, which is not acceptable. Considering the way and manner in which the deceased died, this is not a case where the discretion of this court can be used to enlarge the applicant on bail. Application is sans any merit, hence rejected. 5. After the order is dictated, learned counsel for applicant made a statement across the bar to observe in the order that, “learned trial court not to influence with these observations.”. Before the order was dictated, clear idea was given to the learned counsel for applicant that this is not a fit case to grant the bail. Apart from it, after spending a valuable time of the court in reading the papers and then to pass the reasoned order, it is not expected to make a note that, “learned trial court not to influence with these observations.” (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JULY 2010/cri.appl.2665-10