-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2008 IN IN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2008 1. Tribak Thakaji Shinde 2. Shivaji Trimbak Shinde 3. Vasant Trimbak Shinde... . Applicants versus The State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent. Mr. S.K. Shinde i/b Sagar Kasar for the applicants. Mrs. M.H.Mhatre APP for State. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 25TH JANUARY, 2008 DATED; 25TH JANUARY, 2008 DATED; 25TH JANUARY, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. This is an application filed by the original Accused nos. 2 to 4 for grant of bail. The applicants are convicted for an offence punishable under section 306 read 34 of IPC, so also for an offence punishable under section 498-A read with 34 of IPC. The original accused no.2 who is father of Arun has been convicted for an offence punishable under section 306 and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and for offence punishable under section 498-A IPC, the sentence is R.I. for six months whereas the original accused nos.3 and 4 on their conviction for an offence punishable under section 306, are sentenced -2- to seven years R.I. Whereas for an offence punishable under section 498-A the sentence is R.I. for one year. 2. Few facts that are relevant for consideration of the present application are briefly stated hereinbelow: 3. Arun, son of Tribak Shinde was married to deceased Manjusri @ Shobha in April 1999. She delivered a son on 30-1-2002. She committed suicide on 27-11-2004 by jumping into a well along with her son and both succumbed to death by drowning. The present applicant no.1 is the father of Arun, whereas applicant nos. 2 and 3 Shivaji and Vasant are the brothers of Arun. I am informed by the learned counsel for the applicants that Arun who has been convicted for offence under sections 306 and 498-A along with the present applicants, has not filed any appeal, till date. 4. The prosecution has assigned two reasons for the alleged harassment or ill-treatment of the deceased. The first being demanding dowry and failure on the part of the father of the deceased in meeting the same immediately. And (2) suspicion about the paternity of Arun of the son born to the deceased. In regard to the demand of dowry, the only evidence that is -3- available is in the nature of evidence of the father of deceased. According to the said witness P.w.2 Vinayak, the accused no.1 was illtreating his daughter and had demanded a sum of Rs.15000/- for payment of the amount of deposit for taking a flat on rent at Nashik. The second demand is allegedly for a sum of Rs.5000/- by accused no.1, for purchasing a motor cycle and the last demand was for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs for purchase of a flat by the accused no.1. The learned counsel for the applicants pointed out from the evidence of P.w.2 which is considered in the judgment of Sessions Judge, that all the three demands respectively, i.e. sum of Rs.15000/-, Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 2 lakhs, are by the accused no.1 Arun, and there is no whisper of any demand by the present applicants. The first two demands for the sum of Rs. 15000/- and Rs. 5000/- were met by payment of the said amount, whereas the last demand could not be met as P.w.2 did not have money and had assured the accused no.1 that after the sale of the plot of land, he would give the amount. In the submission of the learned counsel, there is no iota of evidence against the present applicants about any demand of dowry or for that matter demand of any money from the deceased or her father. The Sessions Judge, has considered the case of the present applicants, which in para 62 of the judgment. What is observed is that accused nos.2,3 -4- and 4 were residing together and the deceased was in their custody, meaning thereby, the deceased was residing along with the members of the joint family at the place, where from she committed suicide. In regard to the second reason assigned, by the prosecution for illtreatment or harassment is the suspicion about the paternity of the son born to the deceased. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the evidence of P.w.2 in this regard is an improvement made in the prosecution case as there was nothing to this effect in the complaint filed by P.w.2. Lastly, it is submitted that the evidence of P.w.2 in regard to the harassment or illtreatment is absolutely vague, so far as it relates to the applicnts. 5. I have perused the judgment so also gone through the evidence of P.w.2. In my opinion, this is a fit case for grant of bail to the present applicants. The applicants were released on bail during trial and have not misused the same. The applicant no.1 Trimbak is already released by the Sessions Judge by suspending the sentence. In the result, I direct that the applicants be released on bail on the same terms and conditions on which they were released during the trial on executing fresh bonds. Application accordingly disposed of. -5- ....