RAMDAS BHIWAJI VAITKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Anil Mardikar, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Udheshi, learned APP for nonapplicant No.1/State assisted by Mr. Rai, learned counsel for the complainant. When the matter was heard on 22/4/2022, the following observations were made.

(2.) The applicants have been arraigned for the offence punishable under Ss. 498-A, 304B, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the IPC in Crime No. 726/2021. The incident is dtd. 25/11/2021, on which date the deceased Shraddha, the daughterin-law of the applicants, has attempted to commit suicide by hanging herself by a long scarf (dupatta), whereupon the doors to her room on the first floor were broken open by her husband, the neighbour Mr. Gawande, the applicants, as well as the father of the deceased and Shraddha was taken to hospital and was administered aid, however, she has succumbed on 30/11/2021.

(3.) Mr. Mardikar, learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the matter, as the charge-sheet dtd. 25/2/2022, demonstrates that there was no tiff/quarrel between the applicants and the deceased on the fateful day, for which reliance is placed upon statement of Ramarao Gawande (page 172). He therefore submits that since there are no allegations of any demand, from the date of marriage i.e. 19/5/2019 till 25/11/2021 and such a story is forthcoming only after 30/11/2021, the date of demise of Shraddha, it is not worthy of any belief whatsoever. He further submits that the complaint by Bhanudas Motiram Kalinge (father of deceased) and who is claimed to be on the spot (page 53) and Ramrao Gawande (page 172) depict a totally contradictory position, regarding the state of affairs, prevailing as on 25/11/2021 and therefore by relying upon State of Punjab vrs. Parveen Kumar, (2005) 9 SCC 769 (para 10) and Suresh Arjun Dodorkar vrs. State of Maharashtra, 2005 All MR (Cri) 1599 (para 9), it is contended that the benefit would go to the applicants. Further relying upon Kans Raj vrs. State of Punjab and ors (2000) 5 SCC 207 (para 5) and K. Subba Rao and ors vrs. State of Telangana (2018) 14 SCC 452 (para 6), it is contended that the tendency to rope in the in-laws and other members of the family, is on a rising trend and therefore an application for bail ought to be considered in light of the above tendency. He therefore submits that considering the contradictions between the statements of the complainant as well as that of Ramrao Gawande and the fact that there is no complaint whatsoever from the date of marriage till 30/11/2021, the applicants are entitled for bail. The age the applicants which is respectively 70 and 60 years is also pressed into service for the above purpose.