1 aba437.11.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (ABA) No. 437/2011 Shriram Sitaram Belurkar and ors..vs..State of Maharashtra, thr. PSO PS, Dahihanda,Dist.Akola Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. Anil Mardikar, Advocate for applicants. Mr. D. M. Kale, A.P.P. for non applicant-State CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATED : DECEMBER 20, 2011. 1. This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicant nos. 1 to 3, who have been arrayed as accused in Crime No. 61/2011 registered with Police Station, Dahihanda, Dist. Akola under Section 498-A, 304-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Mohini d/o Rambhau married Sandeep in the month of May-2011. For few months, there was a normal life. Thereafter, Mohini started receiving ill treatment at the hands of her mother-in-law and husband. There was demand for sewing machine. When Mohini disclosed this to her parents, they supplied sewing machine with a hope that things would improve. When Mohini came to her parents' house at the time of 2 aba437.11.odt Diwali, she informed her parents that her mother-in-law abused and insulted her. Sachin, the elder brother of Sandeep was also ill treating her. Mohini then conceived. It was, therefore, believed that things would improve and she would be treated well. When she was reached to her matrimonial house by her brother Nagesh, her mother-in-law quarreled with her. After Diwali, Mohini was talking to her parents on telephone and used to complain against her in-laws. She also used to say that the applicant no.3-Sachin suspects her chastity. On 28.11.2011, Mohini sustained 90% burn injuries and succumbed to the injuries. On the next day, FIR was lodged by her father and on that basis offence came to be registered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that there was neither demand for dowry nor she was subjected to any ill treatment. Only because of death of his daughter, Rambhau lodged the FIR. He further contended that the averments in the FIR are vague and of general nature and that too false. 4. The learned APP resisted the application by filing reply. According to him, considering the gravity of the offence, particularly Section 304-B of the IPC, benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. may not be granted to any of the applicants. 3 aba437.11.odt 5. The fact remains that just within 5-6 months of the marriage, a young lady lost her life. It is not disputed that she succumbed to the burn injuries. Careful consideration of the averments in the FIR point out that there was ill treatment by mother-in-law i.e. applicant no.2. She also used to taunt and torture Mohini for bringing insufficient dowry. When Nagesh had reached Mohini to her matrimonial home at that time also she had quarreled with Mohini. Thus, there is substance in the allegations so far as the applicant no.2- Chhayatai is concerned. As regards applicant no.1- Shriram, there is no whisper and so far as applicant no.3-Sachin is concerned, it is stated that he used to suspect the chastity of Mohini. However, it is not spelt out as to when Mohini had disclosed this fact to her parents. 6. Considering the seriousness of the charges, the application so far as it relates to applicant no.2-Chhayatai Shriram Belurkar, will have to be rejected. The application, so far as it relates to applicant no.1-Shriram Belurkar and applicant no.3-Sachin Belurkar, will have to be allowed. 7. In the event of arrest of applicant no.1-Shriram Sitaram Belurkar and applicant no.3-Sachin Shriram Belurkar, in Crime no. 61/2011 registered with Police Station Dahihanda, Dist. Akola for an offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B r/w 34 of the IPC, they are directed to be released on their executing PR Bond in the sum of 4 aba437.11.odt Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) each with one surety each in the like amount. They are directed to attend Police Station, Dahihanda as and when required by the Investigating Officer. The application, so far as it relates to the applicant no.2- Chhayatai Shriram Belurkar, is rejected. Hamdast allowed. JUDGE kahale