Bombay High Court
Parmeshwar S/O. Chhagan Sasane vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 February, 2020
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
14.ABA.85.2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
14 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.85 OF 2020
Parmeshwar s/o Chhagan Sasane,
Age : 31 years, Occu: Service,
R/o Domri, Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed.
At present Mahagaon, Tq. Gadhinglaj,
Dist. Kolhapur.
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
through Police Station,
Patoda, District Beed.
[copy to be served on P.P. High Court
of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad]
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Salunke Sudarshan J.
APP for Respondent/State: Mrs. M.A. Deshpande
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : . 06.02.2020 PER COURT :
The applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.202/2019 registered with Patoda Police Station, Beed for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A, 328, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts leading to the filing of this application may be summarized as under:
a. The deceased who was wife of the applicant lodged the FIR on 1/5 ::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 03:29:15 :::
14.ABA.85.2020.odt 27.10.2019 alleging that since after her marriage on 22.10.2017 after the initial period of 5 to 6 months the applicant started demanding her money for buying a car. For that reason he started ill-treating her physically and mentally. He was employed in Kolhapur District. He brought her to her in-laws place at Domri and put her a condition that he would resume co-habitation with her only if she brought money from parents and left for the place of his work. It is then alleged that her in-
laws thereafter subjected her to cruelty for the same demand. During that period her mother-in-law administered her some substance for three days. As a result she started vomiting and the applicant thereafter took her to her parental home. b. It is then alleged that her parents then admitted her to a hospital on 18.07.2019. She was taken to GHATI Hospital, Aurangabad. The doctors advised her to terminate pregnancy. Her parents then called the applicant. Her parents and applicant then consulted the doctors and Writ Petition was filed before this Court seeking permission to terminate pregnancy and accordingly the pregnancy was terminated.
c. It is also alleged that thereafter she continued to co-habit with her parents but again she started vomiting and was taken to Sahyadri Hospital, Pune and was treated there between 27 August 2019 and September 2019. Even after discharge she 2/5 ::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 03:29:15 :::
14.ABA.85.2020.odt continued to stay with her parents but again started vomiting on 25th October and her parents took her to the Government Hospital and then to a private hospital and she lodged the FIR while she was taking treatment in that private hospital. The offence was registered as above except for Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
d. It appears that the applicant as well as his other relatives applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. The relatives were granted anticipatory bail. During pendency of that application, it was pointed out that the informant had died on 20.11.2019 and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was included. Consequently the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application of the applicant. This is how the applicant is before this Court.
2. The learned advocate for the applicant submits that even accepting the allegations in the FIR at their face value, the deceased was residing with her parents since July 2019 and has died in the month of November 2019. During this entire period she has been with her parents and has died after lodging the FIR. Since it is not a clear case of murder, it is a case of custodial death while the deceased was in the custody of her parents. However, the applicant and his relatives are now being sought to be implicated for her murder. Though the offence is serious, taking into account all the aforementioned circumstances applicant's custodial 3/5 ::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 03:29:15 :::
14.ABA.85.2020.odt interrogation is not necessary. He is a teacher serving in Kolhapur District and is ready to cooperate the Investigating Officer. His conduct in coming down to Aurangabad and filing a Writ petition seeking permission to terminate the pregnancy and getting it terminated also demonstrates that he is a caring husband and had no motive. He therefore prays that applicant may granted anticipatory bail subject to suitable conditions.
3. The learned APP opposes the application. She submits that the offence is serious. The postmortem examination has been performed. The doctor has opined that deceased has died due to septicaemia in a case of alleged poisoning. The viscera has been preserved and has been sent for hystopathological examination and the report is awaited. Since inception, the deceased was suspecting about having administered some poisons substance and therefore the applicant may not be granted anticipatory bail.
4. Indeed, in the normal circumstances, a relief like anticipatory bail is seldom granted in a case of murder. However, as is observed herein above, the deceased has been in the company of her parents all the while since July 2019 up to her death on 11.11.2019. The Postmortem note also does not specifically mention that the doctor had noticed any symptoms compatible with the case of poisoning. The very opinion appearing in the postmortem note demonstrates that the doctor has not come to any definite conclusion and only mentions about the death having occurred due to septicaemia in a case of alleged poisoning.
5. Be that as it may, in my considered view this is a peculiar case 4/5 ::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 03:29:15 :::
14.ABA.85.2020.odt where though the prosecution is alleging that it is a case of murder, since the deceased was in the custody of her parents, for a period of almost four months prior to her death, the applicant who is the husband in an employment in Kolhapur District will have to be granted anticipatory bail subject to suitable conditions.
6. The application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with Crime No.202/2019 registered with Patoda Police Station, Beed for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A, 328, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, he shall be released on bail on his executing personal recognizance for an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and furnishing solvent surety in the like amount subject to the following conditions:
a) He shall attend the concerned police Station on every Sunday between 9.00 am to 11.00 am starting from 08.02.2020 for a period of four weeks and then as and when called by the Investigating Officer till filing of the charge sheet and shall cooperate the Investigating Officer.
b) He shall not tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses.
(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) habeeb 5/5 ::: Uploaded on - 07/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2020 03:29:15 :::