Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 1]

Bombay High Court

Pralhad Radhakisan Lad And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 October, 2022

Author: R.G. Avachat

Bench: R.G. Avachat

                                                                             28-BA-1202-22.odt



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1202 OF 2022

1. Pralhad Radhakisan Lad
   Age: 46 years, Occu.: Menial Labour

2. Pradip Pralhad Lad
   Age: 24 years, Occu.: Labour,

     Both R/o Shivnagar, Jalna                                ..APPLICANTS

        VERSUS

State of Maharashtra                                          ..RESPONDENT

                                        ....
Mr. A.B. Ghule, Advocate for applicants
Mr. N.T. Bhagat, A.P.P. for respondent - State
                                        ....

                                                CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT, J.
                                                DATE : 03rd OCTOBER, 2022

PER COURT :

1.             This is an application for bail under Section 439 of Code of

Criminal Procedure.           The applicant has been arrested in connection with

Crime No. 68 of 2022 registered with Kadim Jalna Police Station, Dist. Jalna

for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A and 120-B read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act.


2.             Heard.        Perused the First Information Report ("F.I.R.") and

related police papers.

                                        1 / 4



        ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2022                    ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2022 19:57:38 :::
                                                                             28-BA-1202-22.odt



3.            The F.I.R. has been lodged by father of the deceased on 17 th

February, 2022.        Applicant No.1 is father-in-law while Applicant No.2 is

husband of the deceased. It has been averred in the F.I.R. that Applicant No.2

- Pradip called the informant on phone and told that his wife - Sonali was

lying motionless on the sofa.         He, therefore, reached to his daughter's

matrimonial home to find some marks on her neck.                       He, therefore,

immediately informed the concerned police station.             The police arrived.

Sonali was rushed to the hospital. She was found dead. The postmortem

report indicates she died of ligatrue strangulation.



4.            Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that there were

no marks of struggle made by the deceased. There was no fracture of thyroid

cord. He meant to say that thyroid was intact. According to learned counsel,

it may be a case of hanging. The applicants are not likely to abscond. He,

therefore, urged to allow the application.



5.            It has been averred in the F.I.R. that the husband and in-laws of

the deceased had been consistently harassing her. She had, therefore, been to

her father's residence for little over fifteen days before the incident. It was

Applicant No.2 - Pradip (husband of the deceased), who took her back to her

matrimonial home on 15th February, 2022. He was reasoned with that time.

It is only two days thereafter Sonali passed away at her matrimonial home. It



                                      2 / 4



       ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2022                    ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2022 19:57:38 :::
                                                                              28-BA-1202-22.odt



is, therefore, for her husband and in-laws to offer a reasonable explanation

about the cause of death. The postmortem report indicates the deceased died

of ligature strangulation. Prima facie it rules out the case of self-hanging.

The Court is, therefore, not inclined to grant bail to Applicant No.2 - Pradip,

husband of the deceased. So far as regards Applicant No.1 - Pralhad - father-

in-law of the deceased is concerned, he is over sixty years of age.

Considering his age, the Court is inclined to grant him bail.



6.            The trial Court is expected to frame charge within two months

from the date of receipt of copy of this order and conclude the trial within six

months thereafter. If same could not be concluded within the time frame,

Applicant No.2 may revive his prayer for bail. Needless to mention, same

shall be decided on it's own merits.



7.            In view of above, I pass the following order :-


                                        ORDER

(I) The bail application is partly allowed.

(II) Bail application of Applicant No.2 - Pradip Pralhad Lad is rejected.

(III) Applicant No.1 - Pralhad Radhakisan Lad be released on bail, in connection with Crime No. 68 of 2022 registered with Kadim Jalna Police Station, Dist. Jalna for the offences 3 / 4 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2022 19:57:38 ::: 28-BA-1202-22.odt punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with one surety in the like amount.

(IV) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

( R.G. AVACHAT, J. ) SSD 4 / 4 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 04/10/2022 19:57:38 :::