ISHWAR ATMARAM JAVANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 554 of 2021 registered on 26/8/2021 with Karjat Police Station, Taluka-Karjat, District-Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that the First Information Report lodged by the uncle of the deceased would indicate that the present applicant was concerned with the acts done by the deceased with the daughter of the applicant. He was taking objection that the deceased is unnecessarily harassing applicant 's daughter by giving phone calls. He made request to the informant and the father of the deceased that they should give advise to the deceased and in spite of such request when the acts of deceased continued, the applicant had called the informant and the father of the deceased to meet him. There is no question of instigation as contemplated under Sec. 107 of the Indian Penal Code which is one of the necessary ingredient to prove offence under Sec. 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required and the applicant has co-operated to the police when interim protection was granted to him.

(3.) Learned APP strongly opposed the application on the ground that the way the applicant had communicated the things amounted to instigation. In the First Information Report it has been stated that the applicant had gone to the house of the father of the deceased at about 7.00 p.m. on 22/8/2021 and in a insisting way he had stated that deceased was giving trouble to his daughter by giving frequent phone calls and the deceased will not be left by the applicant. It was then stated that the applicant would kill his daughter and the dead body would be thrown in front of the house of the deceased and First Information Report would be lodged by saying that she has been killed by the deceased. Therefore, the informant states that since that date deceased was under tension. Thereafter, on 24/8/2021 also the applicant had called the informant to his house under the pretext that deceased is still giving phone calls to his daughter. Even at that time the informant had told the applicant that deceased is missing since 9.30 a.m. and he would come to meet the applicant in the afternoon. Accordingly, the informant along with his brother and another nephew went to Diksal at 3.00 p.m. Even at that time the applicant told that the deceased is still calling his daughter and they (informant 's family) should convince deceased Mahesh and the applicant would take care of the daughter. Further, it was stated that if the deceased expires then it would be the responsibility of the informant and if the daughter expires then it would be the responsibility of the applicant. After persuading the applicant the informant returned and then he says that they were searching for deceased Mahesh but he could not be found and therefore, missing complaint was lodged. His dead body was found around 6.30 a.m. on 26/8/2021. Thus, there are allegations of instigation against the applicant and therefore, taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence, his physical custody is required for the purpose of investigation. He does not deserve anticipatory bail.