( 1 ) cria4908.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4908 OF 2011 Sevak s/o. Ramrao Rathod .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 09.12.2011 P.C. :- 1. Present applicant is arrested in C.R. No. 61 of 2011 of Akhada Balapur Police Station, Dist. Hingoli. The applicant is husband of deceased, by name, Komal. The F.I.R. is filed by father of the deceased who makes grievance about illtreatment to deceased and particularly demand of Rs.50,000/-. Complainant Tukaram has stated that by about 4’ clock, he got message from present applicant that Komal is found in the well and she has died. Body of said Komal was taken out of the well and ( 2 ) cria4908.11 sent for postmortem. In the postmortem report, the Doctor has observed external injuries in the nature of contusion on parietal region, on the tip of nose and upper lips, near right elbow joint anterior side shows two injury marks done by water animals. So far as injury to head is concerned, he has observed haematoma to scalp. No fracture of skull. Evidence of intracranial haemorrhage and final cause of death is death on account of intracranial haemorrhage due to head injury. The investigating agency has recorded statement of near relatives, who talk of illtreatment by present applicant to said Komal. 2. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that there is no direct evidence against present applicant so as to involve him with the death of the deceased. According to him, the instances of quarrel mentioned were about few months back and at one point of time there was reconciliation between the ( 3 ) cria4908.11 applicant and Komal and therefore there is hardly room to allege that the present applicant was responsible for the death of Komal. 3. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of State submitted that the allegations of cruelty are made out and cause of death is contrary to the case put up by present applicant, namely, deceased died by drowning. According to him the postmortem report clearly indicates that injuries were inflicted on her first and thereafter dead body is thrown in the well. According to him the well did contain sufficient quantity of water and chances of deceased suffering injuries by getting smashed is ruled out. Having considered the record, I am inclined to observe that the present applicant has nexus with the crime alleged. Though it is argued by learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant was not seen as and by way of last seen in the company of the deceased, this submission is required to be rejected on the ground that ( 4 ) cria4908.11 the applicant is husband of the deceased. It is not case of the applicant that in the night of 13th November itself the deceased had left the house. It is really surprising that as the day broke on 14th November, when the applicant could not find his wife in the house, he makes no grievance about it and he does not lodge complaint about missing of his wife. This conduct on the part of the applicant is peculiar and raises suspicion about his bona fides. The deceased is found in the well which is situated in the property of the applicant. If the applicant could not find his wife in his house in the normal course, the applicant could have taken search in the property which is owned by him. This applicant claims that he could not find his wife anywhere nearby his house and the police patil could trace out dead body of Komal in the well which is owned by present applicant. Finding of dead body of Komal in the well which is owned by the applicant is also factor against present applicant. ( 5 ) cria4908.11 4. The nature of injury inflicted in the postmortem report clearly shows that the injuries were caused first and thereafter body of the deceased is thrown in the well. The final cause of death recorded by Doctor is intracranial haemorrhage due to head injury. This observation of the Doctor coupled with injuries reflected in the text of postmortem report clearly indicate that the body of Komal suffered injuries first and thereafter he was thrown in the well. If Komal would have died on account of drowning, the observations of the Doctor who conducted postmortem would have been completely different. For all these reasons, I am inclined to observe that the material placed before the Court through charge-sheet clearly establishes link between the applicant and death of his wife – Komal. The allegations against present applicant are serious. It is apparent on the basis of record that the applicant caused death of said Komal and thereafter tried to contend that she died on account of drowning. In my view present applicant ( 6 ) cria4908.11 cannot be granted bail in such serious case. The application is rejected. 5. Needless to mention that the observations in this order shall not influence learned Additional Sessions Judge before whom the trial is pending. [R.Y. GANOO, J.] snk/2011/DEC11/cria4908.11