1 crapn1326.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1326 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ...APPLICANT VERSUS 1. Hanmant Sambhaji Rachmale, Age: 26 years, Occ: Agri., 2. Sambhaji s/o Tulshiram Rachmale, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agri., 3. Narsing s/o Sambhaji Rachmale, Age: 28 years, Occ: Agri., All R/o Talni (Mou), Tq.Renapur, District Latur. 4. Vasant s/o Nivrutti Adgule, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Dapkyal, Tq. Chakur, District Latur. 5. Gangubai @ Gangabai w/o Sambhaji Rachmale, Age: 31 years, Occ: Agri., & Household, R/o. Talni (Mou), Tq.Renaur Dist.Latur. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for applicant. Mrs. Sadhana S. Jadhav, Advocate for respondents. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2011 2 crapn1326.10 PER COURT : . Heard learned A.P.P. for the applicant and learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and also record available for perusal, there is no specific evidence or specific instance of alleged harassment or illtreatment by respondent Nos.1 to 5. Omnibus statements are made by the prosecution witnesses in their deposition. However, there is no specific allegations as such. 3. Learned A.P.P. submits that so far as respondent No.1 is concerned, there is specific allegation against him that, he visited the house of complainant on 19-01-2008 and demanded Rs. 50,000/- for purchasing the jeep. Therefore, he would submit that the ingredients for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code are met in respect of respondent No.1. Therefore, he would submit that the 3 crapn1326.10 application seeking leave to appeal may be allowed. 4. With the assistance of learned A.P.P., and after perusing the impugned judgment and order and record and proceedings, in my opinion, so far as respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, there are no specific allegations about illtreatment, harassment or demand. Therefore, the view taken by the trial Court qua respondent Nos. 2 to 5 is a possible view on the strength of evidence brought on record by the prosecution. So far as respondent No.1 Hanmant Rachmale is concerned, there is evidence linking him with the alleged incident. He went to the house of complainant on 19-01-2008 and the incident had taken place on 20-01-208. That apart, presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act would be available in the present case, since the marriage between Hanmant and the deceased was solemnised in the year 2005 and the incident had 4 crapn1326.10 taken place on 20-01-2008. 5. In the result, the application seeking leave to appeal against respondent No.1 is allowed. Registry is directed to register the application, as an appeal. 6. On registration of appeal, Admit. 7. So far as the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, the application seeking leave to appeal stands rejected. Consequently, Registry not to register the appeal in respect of respondent Nos. 2 to 5. 8. Since the action under Section 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code to follow, the Additional Sessions Court, Latur to ensure the attendance of respondent No.1 once in every quarter till disposal of this appeal. In short, the concerned Court should ensure the appearance of respondent No.1 Hanmant, four times in a year. He should be 5 crapn1326.10 released on same bail, fresh bond. 9. Registry to send back original Record and Proceedings to the concerned Court, forthwith, so as to prepare paper book. 10. The concerned Section of the concerned Court should see that the paper book is to be prepared immediately and sent to this Court, as early as possible. sd/- [ S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/feb11/crapn1326.10