1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3235 OF 2010 Laxman Dnyanoba Dahiphale & anr. applicants vs The State of Maharashtra respondent ------ Shri J.M.Murkute, Advocate holding for the applicants. Shri D.V. Tele, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. Coram : Shrihari P.Davare, J. Date : 29th September 2010. P. C. 1. Heard Shri J.M.Murkute, learned Counsel for the applicants-accused and Shri D.V.Tele, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. 02. This is an application preferred by the applicants- accused to release them on bail in connection with Crime No.7 of 2010 registered with Police Station, Kingaon, Taluka Ahmedpur, District Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, since they were arrested thereunder on 4.2.2010 and are in judicial custody, presently. 03. It appears that earlier, the present applicants had preferred Criminal Application No.915 of 2010 before this court for grant of bail. Apparently, the said application was preferred during pendency of the investigation and since the 2 investigation was in progress and was not completed, the said application came to be rejected by this court by order dated 22.3.2010 on the said ground, as well as for the other reasons stated therein. 04. It appears that thereafter on 7.5.2010, the applicants herein had preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 100/2010 before the learned Sessions Judge, Udgir, camp at Ahmedpur, for grant of bail, but same also came to be rejected on 10.6.2010 and thereafter the applicants have preferred present application, praying for their release on bail. 05. It appears that the complaint was registered by police on the report lodged by the complainant, namely, Subhash Yeshwantrao Tandale, i.e. the father of the deceased Jyoti, on 4.2.2010. It is alleged in the said complaint that the marriage of Jyoti was solemnized with applicant No.1 herein, namely, Laxman Dnyanoba Dahiphale, on 26.10.2009. Applicant No.2 Ram is the brother of applicant No.1. It is also alleged in the said complaint that applicant No.1, his parents and other persons named therein, subjected the deceased to cruelty and mental harassment after her marriage with applicant No.1 and even the said victim was driven out of the house, due to which the victim Jyoti committed suicide 3.2.2010 at about 4.00 p.m. at her house, by pouring kerosene on her person and setting herself ablaze. It is also alleged that the applicants and their relatives made demand of money and a locket to the victim Jyoti to be brought by her from her parents and,therefore,she was fade up and hence, she committed suicide by setting herself on fire. 3 06. Thus, on perusal of the contents of the said complaint lodged by Subhash Tandale, the father of deceased, it seems that there are general and omnibus allegations against the accused-applicants herein and neither any specific incident of alleged ill-treatment has been mentioned therein, nor any specific role has been attributed to the applicants. Moreover, investigation has now been completed and the charge-sheet has also been filed and therefore, there is no propriety in keeping the applicants in custody furthermore, and hence, they are entitled to be enlarged on bail. 07. Besides that, Shri Murkute, learned counsel for the applicants, invited my attention to the fact that the co-accused Rukhminibai, i.e. the mother-in-law of the victim, after release on bail, lodged complaint on 20.2.2010 at Kingaon Police Station, contending that on the day of the incident i.e. 3.2.2010, she had gone to Kingaon for the purpose of purchasing vegetable and her daughter-in-law i.e. the victim Jyoti alone was in the house. Her son-in-law Namdeo Kendre was with her. On returning from the market, she found that the door of her house was latched from inside. She knocked the door of the house, whereupon one Govind Mahadu Dahiphale came out of the house, scuffled with them and after threatening them, ran away. Thereafter, on enquiry with deceased Jyoti, she told that the co-accused Govind came to her house, took her in the house, locked the house from inside and committed rape upon her, forcibly. Hence, said Rukhminibai told Jyoti that she would call her husband and went nearby to make phone call to the husband of Jyoti. However, when she returned, she noticed that 4 the victim had poured kerosene on her person and set herself on fire. Nearby villagers came and extinguished fire, but since the victim was burnt 100 per cent, she succumbed to the said burn injuries. 08. Accordingly, investigation was made in pursuance of the said complaint lodged by Rukhminibai and the supplementary charge-sheet was filed against co-accused Govind for offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. 09. Shri Murkute, learned Counsel for the applicants, invited my attention to the statement of Sulochana Dahiphale from the supplementary charge sheet, who is the wife of brother of Govind. She stated in her statement that the deceased Jyoti had affair with Govind. 10. Learned Counsel for the applicant also invited my attention to the statement of one Dattu Shankar Dahiphale, from the supplementary charge-sheet, who is resident of the same vicinity. Dattu has stated in his statement that the deceased Jyoti had latched the door of her house from inside and poured kerosene on her person and thus set herself ablaze and, therefore, he climbed on the roof of her house and removed/slided the tin thereof and poured water from the pot on her person to extinguish the fire. Hence, it is submitted that that is why the tin roof of her house was found open at the time of spot panchanama. 5 11. Learned Counsel for the applicant further invited my attention to the statement of Bakubai Dahiphale from the supplementary charge sheet, wherein she has stated that she saw Govind entering into the house of deceased Jyoti, on 3.2.2010, as well as she saw Govind coming out of victim's house. She also stated that deceased Jyoti and Govind were seen sleeping together, by Rukhminibai, the mother-in-law of Jyoti and, therefore, Rukhminibai scolded the deceased Jyoti and had gone out of the house for making telephonic call to the husband of deceased and at that juncture, victim Jyoti poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze after latching the door of the house from inside. 12. Shri Murkute, learned counsel for the applicants, also drew my attention to the D.N.A. report from the additional charge sheet, which states; "1. Male haplotypes of semen detected on ex2 vaginal swab, ex3 skin of Jyoti Bhartar Laxman Dahiphale matches with male hapoltype of blood sample of Govind Mahadu Dahiphale of F.S.L.M.L.Case No. DNA78/10. Opinion:- (1) DNA Profiles of semen detected on ex2 vaginal swab, ex3 skin of Jyoti Bhartar Laxman Dahiphale and blood sample of Govind Mahadu Dahiphale of F.S.L.M. Case No.DNA 78/10 is from the same paternal progeny." 13. Accordingly, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that it appears there was affair between Jyoti and Govind prior to her marriage with present applicant No.1 and she must have committed suicide by setting herself ablaze, when she was caught raid-handed with Govind, by her mother-in-law 6 Rukhminibai on 3.2.2010 and the DNA report is self explicit in that respect and, therefore, he submitted that the applicants are wrongly arrayed and falsely implicated in the alleged crime, and hence, they are entitled to be enlarged on bail. 14. Having the comprehensive view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the applicants have made out a case for releasing them on bail and, therefore, present application deserves to be allowed. 15. In the result, present application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant Nos.1 and 2 s herein be released on bail in connection with Crime No.7 of 2010 registered with Kingaon Police Station, Taluka Ahmedpur, District Latur, on furnishing solvent surety in sum of Rs.15,000/= each and on executing P.R.bonds in the like amount by each of them, on the condition that they shall not tamper with the evidence, and/or influence upon witnesses, directly or indirectly. 16. The observations in this order 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. Application is disposed of. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) pnd/criap3235.10