( 1 ) Cri. Appln.4860-2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4860 OF 2010 Shaikh Sadek s/o Shaikh Subhan, R/o Devi-Dahiphal, Tq. Dharur, at present Shahinshah Nagar, Beed. APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, through P.S., Peth Beed. RESPONDENT .... Mr. T.W. Pathan, advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 13th December, 2010] PER COURT : 1. The application is for bail. 2. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 3. Perusal of the investigation papers prima facie shows that informant Rajiya was claiming herself to be the wife of the applicant. She alleged that her husband had died and, therefore, she started residing at Beed since about one (1) year prior to the incident. She had purchased a house property in Gandhinagar locality at Beed by utilizing the ( 2 ) Cri. Appln.4860-2010 amount which she had received from her deceased husband. She further alleged that about 5/6 months prior to the incident, she had gone to the applicant's clinic. The applicant then assured her to marry and, therefore, both of them got executed a document dated 22nd June, 2010 on stamp paper of Rs. 100/-. Since then, they were residing together as husband and wife. The prosecutrix alleged that she was pregnant due to the matrimonial relationship with the applicant. While carrying the pregnancy of about couple of months, the applicant demanded transfer of the house property in his name and started beating her because she had not agreed to do so. On 5th October, 2010, the applicant threatened her that she or both of her sons from the earlier marriage would be done to death. On 6th October, 2010, he kidnapped her minor son. In the evening, the applicant returned with the minor son - Adil. She noticed that Adil had received bleeding injury on the forehead and there was swelling all over his body including the private part. 4. It appears from the record that there is no Siyanama or any other tangible record except a stamp paper to show that the applicant entered into wedlock with the informant. The investigation papers prima facie show that the applicant ( 3 ) Cri. Appln.4860-2010 himself had brought injured Adil on his scooter in the relevant evening. It appears that the applicant had taken away the minor son of the informant i.e. Adil aged about four (4) years, on the scooter in the relevant noon. There is prima facie evidence, no doubt, to implicate the applicant in the alleged commission of the offence. It appears prima facie that the applicant had taken away minor son of the informant in the relevant noon and had assaulted the minor son. The minor son of the informant was in the company of the applicant since the relevant noon. The applicant did not give proper explanation about the injuries found on the minor son. It prima facie appears that the applicant is required to explain in view of section 106 of the Evidence Act as to how the minor son aged about four (4) years sustained such injuries when he was the custodian of the minor at the relevant time. It appears that the applicant assaulted the minor son of the informant in the relevant noon and there was a fracture injury to the lower end of the humerion as well as swelling found over the private part of the minor. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that there was no injury found on any vital part of the body of injured Adil. The applicant is a Medical Practitioner and if he wanted to eliminate the minor, he could have assaulted the minor - Adil on vital parts of the body or ( 4 ) Cri. Appln.4860-2010 could have done something more serious to take the toll The police recovered a waist belt at instance of the applicant, as purported instrument by which the assault was mounted on person of the minor. Considering the fact that the applicant himself had taken back injured minor Adil to house of the informant in the same evening, prima facie, there does not appear intention to eliminate the minor son. 5. In view of the foregoing discussion, the application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds in sum of Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) with one solvent surety bond in the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Court of Sessions, and on condition that simultaneously, he shall furnish an undertaking before the Court of Sessions to the effect that he will not enter Beed town, except on the scheduled dates of hearing of the criminal case, which may be filed against him after due investigation. He will not contact any of the prosecution witnesses and will make no attempt to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln4860-2010 ( 5 ) Cri. Appln.4860-2010