BHAGWAN BHAU HULAWALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.90 of 2020 registered with Akole Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. His application with similar prayer bearing Bail application No.110 of 2020 came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner vide order dated 3.7.2020.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that prosecution case entirely rests upon the circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence in this case. Learned counsel submits that even the motive is also weak. Deceased Savita was the wife of the applicant and their marriage was solemnized way back in the year 1995. They had three children, all of them are major. Witness Tushar, who happened to be a son was staying alongwith them. Learned counsel submits that even witness Tushar in his police statement did not state anything about the presence of the applicant in the house or in the cattle-shed at the relevant time. Learned counsel submits that the informant has no personal knowledge and witness Tushar had informed to him that in the cattle-shed his mother deceased Savita was found lying in injured condition. Even witness Tushar has stated in his police statement that he guessed that the cow having some violent nature had done something and, therefore, his mother sustained injuries. Witness Tushar had not stated anything about the ill-treatment being extended to the deceased at any point of time. However, the informant has brought said theory in his complaint. Learned counsel submits that even assuming that last incident about ill-treatment being extended to the deceased occurred in the year 2018 and, thereafter, there are no allegations about ill- treatment being continuously extended to the deceased Savita. Learned counsel submits that even the homicidal death as alleged by the prosecution is under cloud. Learned counsel submits that though deceased Savita died due to injuries, however, as per the answers given to the query made by the Investigating offcer, the concerned Medical Offcer, who has conducted the postmortem examination, has stated that those injuries are possible by fall on hard foor or fallen on iron pipe or on a cement concrete half wall in the cattle-shed etc. Even, the medical offcer has also accepted that such injuries are possible by push by the cow with the help of her horns. Learned counsel submits that possibility of sustaining the injuries accidentally by deceased Savita also cannot be ruled out. There is no criminal history. The applicant has a fxed place of residence. He is easily available for trial. There is no question of tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is ready to abide any condition, if imposed by this court. The applicant may be released on bail.

(3.) Learned A.P.P. has strongly resisted the application on the ground that though there is no direct evidence in this case, however, there is a chain of circumstantial evidence. Deceased was being ill-treated for various reasons by the applicant and, even in the year 2018 applicant has mercilessly beaten the deceased Savita. In consequence thereof, deceased Savita had gone to her brother's house namely Balasaheb and only after settlement between the parties and after execution of the bond of settlement, deceased Savita had been to her matrimonial home for further cohabitation. Learned APP submits that it is a custodial death and in view of the same, it is incumbent upon the applicant/accused to explain about death of his wife. Learned APP submits that no explanation is forthcoming about death of deceased Savita.