..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3747 OF 2008 Abhaysing Dnyandev Rananware. ..Applicant. Versus State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Sr.Counsel a/w. Mr.Kedar J. Patil, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.Satish Maneshinde, Sr.Counsel for orig.complainant. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 18th December, 2008. DATED : 18th December, 2008. DATED : 18th December, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant - orig.accused, the learned Counsel for orig.complainant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in CR No.99 of 2008 of Akluj police station. The said case is mainly under Section 498-A and 304-B of IPC. 3. The applicant had earlier preferred an application for bail which came to be rejected by this Court by order dated 10th September, 2008. ..(2).. Thereafter this application for bail has been preferred by the applicant on fresh grounds. 4. The first ground is that at the relevant time the applicant was not at Akluj where the incident took place, but, he was infact at Pune. The prosecution case is that the marriage of the applicant with the deceased took place on 14.12.2006. The wife of the applicant committed suicide by hanging herself on 16.6.2008 i.e. within 18 months of the marriage. It is not the prosecution case that the wife of the applicant was murdered, but, it is the prosecution case that she committed suicide on account of ill-treatment and harassment mainly at the hands of the applicant on account of demand not being met. As it is the prosecution case that the wife of the applicant committed suicide, even if the applicant on the relevant day was not in Akluj where the incident took place but he was at Pune, in my opinion it would not in any way affect the prosecution case. 5. The other ground on which this application is preferred is that as per the prosecution case there was demand made by the applicant and as the demand ..(3).. was not met she was ill-treated and harassed mainly by the applicant. Mr.Mundargi submitted that the record of Tata Consultancy Services where the applicant was an employee shows that the applicant had nominated his wife as beneficiary in respect of superannuation funds. He has submitted that if the prosecution case is that the applicant was demanding money or valuables from the family of his wife is true, the applicant would not have nominated his wife as beneficiary in the company. No doubt the said document shows that the deceased i.e. wife of the applicant and mother of the applicant are both equal beneficiaries, however, that by itself would not make the prosecution case a false one. 6. No further grounds have been pointed out so as to reconsider the earlier decision rejecting the application for bail. Hence, application is rejected. In case the trial is not completed within three months, liberty to the applicant to prefer a fresh application for bail. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)