- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1065 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.1065 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO.1065 OF 2008 IN IN IN CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL NO. NO. NO. OF 1015 2008 OF 1015 2008 OF 1015 2008 Tukaram Eknath Jagtap and othes ...Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Jaydeep D. Mane for the applicants. Mr.P.A.Pol A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : APRIL 1,2009 : APRIL 1,2009 : APRIL 1,2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The learned Advocate for the applicants states that for the time being he is not pressing the application in so far as the first applicant (accused no.3) is concerned with liberty to file a fresh application. 2. The application in so far as first applicant is concerned is dismissed as not pressed with a liberty to make a fresh application within a period of six months. 3. The second and third applicants are the 4th and 5th accused respectively. The second and third applicants are the women who were enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. From the date of impugned Judgment and order i.e. 3rd April 2008, the said applicants are in custody. The second and third applicants have been convicted for the offence punishable under section 498-A r/w section 34 of the Indian - 2 - Penal Code and section 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The maximum substantive sentence is R.I. of 8 years for the offence under section 306 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. It must be stated that after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed alleging commission of offence under section 498-A, 304-B and 306 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. The charge sheet was filed on 23rd April 2005. The incident is of 23rd February 2005. 4. It must be stated here that the first applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. The second applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The third applicant is the sister-in-law of the deceased. It appears that the complainant (father of the deceased) filed a Writ Petition in this court seeking a direction regarding re-investigation in the case and for filing a charge-sheet for the offence under section 302 of the I.P.C. On the basis of the direction issued by this court further investigation was carried out and subsequently charge sheet was filed against the accused for offence under section 302, 201 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. The learned Trial Judge has disbelieved the case of the prosecution regarding homicidal death of the deceased and the case made out in the alternative that the deceased died suicidal death by jumping into the deep water of river. Accused have been acquitted for the offence under section 304-B on the finding that the prosecution has failed to establish that they were harassing the deceased in connection - 3 - with the dowry demand. The charge under Section 306 of the I.P.C. has been held as proved on the basis of section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act,1872. 5. The second and third applicants are women and both of them were on bail throughout the trial. Considering the facts, benefit of bail must be given to the applicants. 6. Hence, I pass the following order : i) The present Criminal Application as far as first applicant is concerned is dismissed as not pressed with a liberty to make a fresh application after six months. ii) The second applicant ( Nilabai Tukaram Jagtap) and third applicant (Vijaya Babasaheb Shinde) shall be enlarged on the same bail on which they were enlarged during the pendency of the trial subject to filing fresh bailbonds within a period of four weeks from today. iii) The bail is granted subject to condition that the second and third applicants will report to Taluka Police Station, Pandharpur, District Solapur once in every calendar month. - 4 - JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE