SUBHASH NATBUJI BHANDARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri. A. K. Bhangde, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri. Mirza, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is the husband of deceased Babita and he has been arrested on24.5.2002. THE First Information Report was lodged by the mother of the deceased by Name Shakuntala at police station Manora, District Washim. On the basis of report, the offence bearing Crime No. 54/2002 was registered against the applicant-husband as well as against the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. He further contended that the investigation was completed and the charge-sheet was also filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class on22.8.2002 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide Sessions Trial No. 97/2002. THE learned counsel for the applicant contended that co-accused i. e. father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased have already been released on bail. He contended that First Information Report was lodged on24.5.2002; whereas the date of incident is stated to be 17.5.2002 and thus according to him there is unexplained delay in lodging First Information Report. He pointed out that on17.5.2002 applicant had gone to attend to his agricultural field and Babita was alone in the house, she consumed poison and she was shifted immediately to Government hospital, Akola where she was declared dead by Doctor. He contended that statements of prosecution witnesses relied on by the prosecution do not make out a prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and in the circumstances, applicant-accused is entitled to be released on bail. He further contended that his bail petition was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim on9.9.2002. He contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in law.

(3.) I have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is not disputed that the marriage of Babita was solemnized with the applicant-husband about6 years prior to the incident. Babita appears to have committed suicide on17.5.2002 by consuming poison. The dying declaration of the deceased was not recorded. There was unexplained delay of about seven days in lodging First Information Report. The First Information Report has been lodged by the mother of the deceased. The witnesses Uttam Wankhede is the father, Sumitra is the sister and even Dilip Nishane is not neighbour of the applicant. It is also not disputed that the statements of neighbours have not been recorded to show that there was continuous ill-treatment or cruelty meted out to the deceased due to non-fulfilment of demand for dowry of Rs. 20,000/- have not been mentioned in the complaint. It is also not disputed that deceased Babita did not write a single letter to her parents. The allegations mentioned in the complaint F. I. R. are in the nature of general allegations and in such circumstances, I am of the considered view that a case for grant of bail has been made out and consequently I pass the following order : - ORDEr