MANOJ HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. Kiran T. Jamdar for applicant (appointed) and learned APP Mr. V.M. Kagne for respondent-State.

(2.) It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant, that First Information Report has been lodged by the father-in-law of the present applicant alleging that his daughter Namrata, who was the wife of present applicant, was treated with cruelty by the present applicant and in-laws and then she died in unnatural circumstance. The entire investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed, therefore, further physical custody of the applicant is not required for the purpose of investigation. The applicant and co-accused had approached learned Sessions Judge, Latur for bail. However, the prayer in respect of releasing the applicant on bail was rejected. Co- accused have been released on bail. There was delay of about five days in filing the report and no explanation has been given for the said delay. It appears that the father, due to the sudden death of daughter, with ulterior motive, has filed report with concocted story. There was no intention or motive on the part of the applicant or his relatives and they have not abated the commission of suicide by the deceased. The applicant is doing labour work in a private company and had no intention to start any business, yet, it is alleged that he was demanding amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for starting business. Namrata was happy in her married life. In fact, the applicant had gone to his work on the day of incident. Deceased was studying in Dayanand College at Latur and even after her marriage the applicant had given consent to her to continue her education. Deceased has left a note addressing the applicant, stating that no one should be blamed for her said act. The said note has been seized during investigation and it is part and parcel of the charge sheet. There is absolutely no evidence against the present applicant, and therefore, asking him to languish in jail would be injustice to him. He, therefore, prayed for release of the applicant on bail.

(3.) Per contra, the learned APP objected the application and submitted, that the contents of the FIR and statements of witnesses would show, that there was illegal demand from the present applicant and his parents. They had treated the deceased with cruelty. As a result of which, the deceased has committed suicide. It is her unnatural death. When there is evidence against the applicant, leniency need not be shown.