DADASAHEB SHIVRAM KANCHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Application no. 2875 of 2007 is filed by one dadasaheb Shivram Kanchan; Cri. Appln. No. 3025 of 2007 is filed by Santosh dadasaheb Kanchan; and Cri. Appln. No. 3025 of 2007 is filed by Ratna Dadasaheb kanchan. Dadasaheb and Ratna are the parents of Santosh. Crime No. 138 of 2007 came to be registered against the present applicants who are accused, and who are facing prosecution for commission of offence under sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 read with section 34 of I. P. Code. The offence came to be registered on 24-4-2007. The applicants came to be arrested on the very day i. e. 24-4-2007 and since then till date they are in custody.

(2.) Few facts that are relevant for consideration of these applications are narrated hereinbelow. The deceased Shubhangi got married to Santosh on 13-12-2006. It is case of the prosecution that dowry was demanded by the applicants' family and also received the same from the parents of the deceased. It is further alleged that about ten lakh rupees were spent on the marriage by the father of the deceased. The demand for dowry on the part of the present applicants was not satisfied and so they were harassing the deceased. The deceased was mentally and physically harassed. The deceased had narrated the incidence of illtreatment and harassment to her mother and sister. On 23-4-2007 Shubhangi was asked to bring money from her father for purchase of scorpio car and washing machine. On the same day Shubhangi was expired of extensive burn injuries and before she was brought to Sasoon Hospital Pune, she succumbed to death. Shubhangi had suffered 97% burns. Post-mortem was performed at sasoon Hospital. The probable cause of death as opined by the Doctor is "shock due to burn injuries". However, no carbon particles were found in the respiratory system, despite 97% burns. As no Soot was discovered in the trachea and lungs of the deceased. The present intervener by name indira Mahila Adhar Kendra filed a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition no. 1834 of 2007 and prayed for further investigation at the hands of State CID, as the said NGO was not happy with the investigation at the hands of the local police. It was argued before this Court in the above referred writ petition by the NGO that though the case squarely falls under section 302 of I. P. Code, the local police registered the same under sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 of I. P. Code. This Court being of the prima- facie view that ordinarily Soot would have been found somewhere in the trachea or respiratory track as she had 97% burns and no investigation was done in that respect. The Court recorded its dissatisfaction in the manner the investigation had then progressed. The Court thus, directed the State CID (Crime) to take over the investigation from the local police. It is thus clear that doubt was expressed as to how investigation was not made in relation to an offence under section 302 when no Soot was detected in trachea and respiratory track.

(3.) In this view of the matter, it required to be examined as to whether the applicants could be released on bail and if they are to be released, on what conditions. The applicants are in custody for last about ten months. The investigation is still in progress. It would be inappropriate to deny bail to the applicants, in view of the circumstances that have come on record. Having regard to totality of the facts and circumstances, i think it just and proper to release the applicants on bail.