[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3055 OF 2006. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3055 OF 2006. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3055 OF 2006. Ganesh Vilas Methe .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. shirish Gupte, Sr. Counsel with Mr. M.S. Mohite for the applicant. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 28TH AUGUST, 2006. DATE : 28TH AUGUST, 2006. DATE : 28TH AUGUST, 2006. P.C. . The applicant is arrested in CR..No. 83/2006 registered at Laxmipuri Police Station. The offences alleged are under Section 376, 420, 506 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Mr. Gupte, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the bail application filed in the trial Court after the chargesheet was filed has been rejected despite holding that the applicant has no antecedent, that he is residing in the City of Kolhapur. He is married and having two kids and with firm and deep roots in the society. He submits that [2] application is rejected in the light of the statement of the deceased, a married lady of 31 years. The statement is that she poured kerosene on herself because of the fact that the applicant did not fulfil the promise given to her to marry and adopt the child. she has also referred to the fact that the cousin of the applicant is a Corporator and he had called the father of the deceased in connection with the relations which the applicant had with her over a passage of time. 3. Mr.Gupte submits that she is a married lady of 31 years and divorced from her husband. Thus, no case under section 376 of IPC can be made out, once the lady has herself stated that the relations were by consent and applicant promised marriage, from time to time. As far as the assurance of the marriage is concerned Mr. Gupte submits that the statement recorded is clear. He further submits that there are no threats because at one stage the deceased asserts that the applicant ran away after assuring that he would marry her and was not available for quite some time. In such circumstances, statement of the deceased recorded prior to her death so also the statement of her father shows that, prima facie, the ingredients of the sections are not [3] satisfied. The deceased was involved in civil litigation with her ex-husband and that resulted in an order adverse to her. She was directed to hand over custody of the minor daughter to her ex-husband. The possibility of her being disturbed and upset, thus cannot be ruled out. 3. On the other hand the learned A.P.P.submits that the deceased poured kerosene on herself after cousin of the applicant intervened at his instance and administered a threat which is clear from the statement of the father as also the deceased. This is the case where there is a evidence against the applicant. The offences are serious. In such circumstances the application cannot be considered and should be rejected. 4. There is substance in the contentions of learned Senior Counsel. Admittedly, after investigations were completed and charge-sheet is filed, Criminal Application No. 462 of 2006 was preferred in the Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Judge has referred to earlier order of 7th July, 2006 which was delivered during the Course of investigation. The learned Judge has observed that it is necessary to [4] evaluate the additional material. Prima facie evaluation of the same shows illicit relations with the deceased prosecutrix by giving false assurances to her. However, it is pertinent to note that the learned Judge has observed in his order that the applicant has treated the deceased with cruelty to such an extent that ultimately she committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself. In my view, both the statements read as a whole and taken at their face value prima face, do not make out a case of threat. That is not even the allegation of the deceased leave alone her father. On the other hand, it is alleged that the applicant was not traceable for about fortnight, also he was dodging and avoiding meeting her. That she was disturbed and upset about the injustice to her is the sum and substance of the allegations. There was an intervention of the cousin brother of the applicant in the entire affair. In both statements I do not find a case of threat or cruelty being made out against the applicant. That allegation is against Nishikant the co-accused. In such circumstances and when the applicant has been found to be from respectable family and being married and having two small kids and a income tax payer, with firm roots in the society could not have been denied bail by the [5] trial Court. 5. There is no material even today to show that, applicant being enlarged on bail would not be available for the trial. If the Cousin of the applicant has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge then the applicant who is detained in custody deserves bail. 6. Mr. Gupte states that the applicant is doing business in jewellery in Kolhapur. In the above facts and circumstances the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail . He has been in custody since 23rd June, 2006. Hence, following order. i) The applicant arrested in connection with Cr.No. 83/2006 registered with Laxmipuri, Police Station shall be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs 25000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount. ii) The bail is granted subject to condition that the applicant will remain present before the concerned investigating officer of Laxmipuri Police Station once [6] in a week till conclusion of the trial. iii) The order of bail will be given effect only after the applicant furnishes to the investigating officer the details about his place of residence and address where he proposes to stay after he is enlarged on bail. The applicant will not change his residential address thereafter till the conclusion of trial without prior intimation to the Investigating officer. iv) The bail is granted subject to condition that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement or threat to any prosecution witnesses and shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence. v) The applicant shall cooperate with the learned Trial Judge for expeditious disposal of the case. Any attempt by the applicant to delay the trial may be a ground for cancellation of bail. vi) Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. [7] vii) Application is disposed of in above terms. viii) Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. ( S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) ( S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) ( S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)