1 Cri.A.2218.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2218 OF 2011 Yogesh Rajaram @ Maharu Patil Age : 26 years, Occu.: Agril., R/o Chilgaon, Tq. Jamner District Jalgaon. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, ...RESPONDENT. ... Shri. P.B.Sirsath,Advocate for Applicant. Shri.B.J.Sonwane, A.P.P. for Respondent. ... CORAM: T.V.NALAWADE, J. DATE : 8th JUNE, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This application is filed for bail, in Crime No. 04 of 2011, registered with Pahur Police Station, District Jalgaon, for the offence punishable under sections 302, 498(A), 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Papers of the investigation are made available by APP. Both sides are heard. 2 Cri.A.2218.11 3. The report is given by brother of the deceased. The deceased was given in marriage to the applicant on 20.05.2006 and deceased left behind her a daughter of two years. Allegations are made that after six months of marriage the applicant started demanding of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lacs), as he wanted to dig a well in his land. The allegation is made that an amount of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand) was given, when demand was made and subsequently also some amount was given for digging the well. The allegations are made that mother-in-law and applicant were ill-treating the deceased as her parents were not giving money to the applicant in time. The allegations are made that about one month prior to the incident a demand of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) was made by the applicant for installation of drip irrigation in his field. Allegations are made that this demand was not fulfilled so there was more ill treatment given to the deceased and threat was given that something will be done to deceased by the applicant. 4. On 18.01.2011 the complainant had requested the applicant to send the deceased to his village for religious function, but she was not sent. Allegations are made that on the same day one Dr. Sopan Patil informed the complainant that deceased had consumed poison in the field and she is dead. It is the case of the complainant that when he went to the house of 3 Cri.A.2218.11 applicant and saw the body of the deceased and there were marks of violence on the neck and he suspected that it was case of murder. The report was immediately given by the complainant. 5. Postmortem report shows that the death of the deceased took place due to cardio respiratory failure due to asphyxia due to throttling . Horizontal marks were found on the neck . There was no fracture of hyoid bone. 6. There are statements of some witnesses to show that they had seen the present applicant and the deceased going to the field on that morning. It appears that present applicant gave a report to the Police and simply informed that his wife was found dead in the field. It is case of the complainant that false information was given that the deceased had consumed position. This circumstance can be considered under section 8 of the Evidence Act during the course of trial. This material is sufficient to make out prima facie case against the applicant. The Sections 106 and 114 of the Evidence can be used in such cases. Though, the mother of the applicant is granted bail, the evidence against the applicant is of different nature. Eye witnesses are from village of the applicant and there is possibility of tampering prosecution witnesses from the applicant. The 4 Cri.A.2218.11 Charge-sheet is filed. So this Court holds that it is not fit case for granting bail. Hence, application stands rejected. At this stage advocate for the applicant made request for expeditious disposal of the trial. The Sessions Court is directed to dispose of this case within five months from the date of receipt of this order. Sd/- [ T.V.NALAWADE, J.] MTK