1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 822 OF 2010 Sunil s/o Gulab Satav ...Applicant VERSUS State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Smt. Madhaveshwari Thube – Mhase, advocate for the applicant Shri P.P.More, A.P.P. for the respondent. ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 18th March, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Smt. Madhaveshwari Thube – Mhase, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri P.P.More, learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2 This an application preferred by the applicant requesting to enlarge him on bail in connection with CR No. I-418 of 2009, registered at Shrigonda police station for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, since he was arrested thereunder on 13.11.2009. 2 4 It appears that the first information report was lodged by one Balu Karbhari Kutal i.e. father of deceased Rekha on 13.11.2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant and also against the parents in law of Rekha, namely Gulab Satav and Hirabai Satav as well as against sister-in-law namely Alka Satav, alleging that Rekha was subjected to cruelty and harassment by them for unlawful demand of Rs.1,00,000/- to be brought from her parental house for the purchase of land and she was also subjected to physical and mental torture and thereby she was fed up and committed suicide by jumping into well along with her minor daughter Shweta. 5 According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the other accused persons have been enlarged on bail except the applicant herein and investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed, and therefore, it is submitted that there is no propriety in keeping the applicant in custody further more. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that apparently there is no evidence to connect the applicant with the alleged crime, and therefore, also he is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6 Learned A.P.P. opposed the present application and countered the said arguments and submitted that during the investigation, it was transpired that the applicant herein has illicit 3 relations with his sister-in-law Alka and some statements recorded during the course of investigation reflect the said aspect. It is further submitted by learned A.P.P. that postmortem report of deceased Rekha discloses that stomach was having 200 ml. whitish fluid having poisonous smell, having taken last intake 15 to 20 minutes prior to death. Hence, learned A.P.P. submitted that nature of the offence is serious and the gravity of the offence does not warrant that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 7 After perusal of the investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the cause of death as disclosed in postmortem report is, “probable death is due to asphyxia due to drowning, however, viscera was preserved”, and hence, it is apparent that the death of the victim did not occur due to poisonous substance, but same was probably occurred due to drowning. Moreover, the learned counsel for the applicant also pointed out that the marriage between deceased Rekha and the applicant herein took place about 10 years back and apparently, except the statements of some of the witnesses, which can be appreciated at the time of trial, there is nothing on record in respect of alleged illicit relations of the applicant with Alka. Besides, it is also pointed out that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed on 25.1.1020, and therefore, there is no propriety in keeping the applicant in custody further more. 4 8 Having the comprehensive view of the matter, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail and accordingly Criminal Application No. 822 of 2010 succeeds and same is allowed. The applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing P.R. Bond in the like amount. The applicant shall not influence upon the witnesses and/or tamper with the evidence directly or indirectly. 9 The above observations are prima facie and shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. 10 The application is disposed of accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) dbm/cr822.10