1 criapln1903-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1903 OF 2011 1] Janabai w/o Ramhari Walunje 2] Sarala w/o Vishnu Mote .. APPLICANTS Vs 1] The State of Maha. 2] Superintendent of Police Aurangabad .. RESPONDENTS ... Shri N.S.Ghanekar,Adv. for applicants. Shri S.G.Nandedkar,APP for R-State. Shri B.N.Magar,Adv.for complainant. ... CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2521 OF 2011 1] Kankeshwar Popatrao Yetal .. APPLICANT Vs 1] The State of Maha. .. RESPONDENT ... Shri N.S.Ghanekar,Adv.for applicants Shri S.G.Nandedkar,A.P.P. for State ... CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE,J. DATE : 21/06/2011 2 criapln1903-11 ORAL ORDER: 1] Both the applications are filed in Crime No.I-39/2011 registered in Khultabad police station, Dist.Aurangabad, for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 504, 506, 34 of I.P.C. and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The first application is filed for anticipatory bail and the second application is filed for regular bail. Advocate Shri B.N.Magar appeared for original complainant and he was allowed to assist A.P.P. A.P.P. has produced papers of investigation. Both sides are heard. 2] The report is given by brother of deceased. Deceased Vaishali was given in marriage to applicant from second proceeding on 5/2/2010. Allegations are made that from July 2010, Vaishali started disclosing that the husband and relatives of the husband were giving ill treatment to her. She disclosed that they were demanding money as the husband wanted to purchase a mobile phone hand set. In subsequent visits, she disclosed that the husband and his relatives were demanding money as he wanted to pay instalment of the loan taken for purchasing tractor and they wanted money for starting clothes shop. There was demand of Rs.1.5 lacs according to the complainant. The dispute was taken to Women Redressal Forum and there, compromise took place and Vaishali resumed cohabitation after short stay with the parents. Brother has made allegations that even 3 criapln1903-11 after resuming cohabitation, ill treatment was not stopped. He has contended that he used to contact deceased and she used to disclose that the husband and relatives were insisting that they should withdraw the complaint filed in Womens redressal forum. The complainant has also contended that threat was given to him also by mother of the husband of deceased who was thinking that he had instigated the deceased to give complaint to Redressal forum. 3] The incident took place in the night on 16/3/2011. The dead body of Vaishali was found in the well situated in the land of the husband. Report came to be given on 17/3/2011. 4] It is submitted for the applicants that the sisters of the husband who are applicants in the first proceedings were married long back and they were living with their respective husbands in their matrimonial houses. It was submitted that there was no occasion or reason for them to give ill treatment to the deceased. It was submitted that applicant no.2 has a child aged about less than 1 year and so it is not possible that she was present in the house at the relevant time. It was submitted that charge sheet is filed and all the witnesses are from the village of the complainant and so there is no question of tampering with prosecution witnesses by the applicants. The advocate appointed by the complainant produced copy of complaint given to redressal forum, which shows that allegations were made by her that the 4 criapln1903-11 husband was giving her ill treatment and he was demanding money for purchasing mobile phone etc. She has made allegations that on one occasion, the husband and his parents had attempted to finish her by throttling but somehow, she had saved herself. 5] The record prepared by the redressal forum shows that in the month of August 2010, there was compromise and resumption of cohabitation took place. This record, copy of which is produced at page no.85 shows that parties admitted that there was some misunderstanding and due to compromise, Vaishali had returned to matrimonial house. 6] The post mortem report shows that the death took place due to drowning. Three abrasions were found on left and right knee joint and the injuries were anti mortem in nature. Spot panchanama shows that that there was no parapit wall to the well and motor pump is installed on the well. But advocate for applicants submitted that there is possibility of accidental death. Spot panchanama is not supporting these submissions atleast at this stage, as there are no steps to the well for getting into the well. 7] The aforesaid material is sufficient to make out prima facie case for offence punishable under Section 304-B of I.P.C. against the husband. However 2 sisters of the husband are married and they are 5 criapln1903-11 cohabiting with their respective husbands. A.P.P. submitted that the place of residence of one sister is situated at a distance of 15 Kms. and it is from the same tehsil and the other sister is resident of Vasai, Thane. It is clear that the marriage of applicant no.1 from first proceeding took place many years prior to the incident. In view of these circumstances and as applicant no.2 is admittedly having a baby aged about 1 year, this Court holds that they are entitled to anticipatory bail. These observations are only for the purpose of these 2 proceedings and they will not come in the way of trial Court while deciding the case. 8] The investigation is over and the witnesses are from the village of complainant. Stress was given on statement given by one Annasaheb Jadhav who has named all the accused in his statement. Most of the evidence will be of the nature of disclosures made by deceased. F.I.R. was given immediately. In these circumstances, there is no possibility of tampering with the prosecution witnesses even by the husband. So this Court holds that husband is also entitled to bail, subject to some conditions. So the order. 9] Both the applications are allowed. In case of arrest of applicant No.1 Janabai W/o Ramhari Walunje and applicant no.2 Sarala w/o Vishnu Mote in Criminal Application No.1903/2011 in Crime No.I-39/2011 registered in Khultabad police station, Dist.Aurangabad, 6 criapln1903-11 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323, 504, 506, 34 of I.P.C. and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, they are to be released on bail, on their furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/- each. They should not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. They should not enter the village Ghodegaon. 10] Applicant Kankeshwar S/o Popatrao Vetal in Criminal Application No.2521/2011 is to be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/-. He should not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. He should not enter village Ghodegaon. [T.V.NALAWADE,J.] umg/criapln1903-11