1 CRI.APPLN.NO.294/2010 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.85/2011 (Ravi s/o Ramchandra Solanke Vs. The State of Maharashtra) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Vivek M Lomte, Adv. for applicant; Mr.NB Patil, APP for State. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 31 st January, 2011. ... 1) Heard. 2) The accused, husband of deceased Archana, in custody from 10.10.2010, seeks release on bail for an offence punishable under sections 306, 498-A, 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3) The learned Counsel submits, since the other accused, viz. Ratnamala, sister and brother of the accused/applicant are released on bail, same scale should be applied for the applicant/accused. The Counsel further submits, charge sheet is filed on 8.12.2010, consequently, further custody of the applicant is not desirable. According to him, payment of Rs. 20,000/- by mother of the deceased, tried to be substantiated from Saving Account, is not so illustrative. Hence, no such payment could be said to have been made to the applicant/accused. 4) The F.I.R. of father of the deceased, in unmistakable terms, illustrate that during marital period of 4 years, deceased ½ Archana was not treated well, she was required to stay at her parental house for a year, after intervention, she was sent, again skirmish continued and she was brought to her parental house in May. The applicant/accused was paid Rs.50,000/- and 2 CRI.APPLN.NO.294/2010 was assured that the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- would be paid after harvesting Soybean. The deceased was sent at her matrimonial home in June-2010. However, the harassment and ill-treatment continued. The applicant/accused, under the influence, was ill-treating, humiliating and abusing the victim. The statements of the neighbours, who are independent to the accused/applicant, support the said events at the instance of the applicant/accused. Relations have castigated the role of the applicant/accused. The evidence show that applicant/accused has received Rs.50,000/-, however, his greed did not stop and humiliation further continued. Even if charge sheet is filed, the grounds stated above do not entitle the applicant/accused, husband of deceased to be released on bail. Application rejected. Observations are prima facie in nature. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/