Bombay High Court
Madhukar S/O. Ramchandra Vasmate vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 March, 2020
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
20 ABA No 214 of 2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
20 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.214 OF 2020
Madhukar s/o Ramchandra Vasmate,
Age : 35 years, Occ. : Spl. Assi. P. P.
Posted at Naigaon,
R/o : at present in rental house of
Shri.Panchal, Sharda Residency,
Vishal Nagar, Pawde Wadi Road,
Nanded, District Nanded. . . . . APPLICANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Inspector,
Police Station, Bhagyanagar,
Dist. Nanded. . . . . RESPONDENT
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr.S.B.Bhapkar
A.P. P. for Respondent/State : Ms.G.L.Deshpande
Assist to A. P. P. : Mr.Rahul P. Dhase
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 04/03/2020. PER COURT :-
1. The Applicant who is the husband of the deceased, is seeking bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.4/2020 1 ::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2020 00:09:30 ::: 20 ABA No 214 of 2020.odt registered with Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded for the offence punishable under Section 304-B r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. It is alleged that on account of persistent harassment to which the deceased was subjected to on account of demand for money and the attitude of the applicant in trying to strangulate her on a previous day, on 23/11/2019 she hanged herself leaving behind a suicide note. Since she was not immediately dead, she was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad but succumbed on 27 November 2019 and her brother lodged F.I.R. on 02 January 2020.
3. The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the allegations against the applicant are vague and omnibus. The ingredients for constituting offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be made out from the F. I. R. The demand for money was not in the nature of dowry. The F.I.R. has been lodged after a lapse of more than a month. There is no explanation in the F. I. R. about such delay. The deceased was short-tempered and merely because she has hanged herself, no interference is deducible, much less attributing it to any harassment by the applicant.
2 ::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2020 00:09:30 :::
20 ABA No 214 of 2020.odt
4. The learned Advocate further submits that the very fact that even the married sisters have been involved, is indicative of the ulterior motive of the informant in falsely implicating the applicant. The sisters have already been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court and, therefore, the applicant, who is a Public Prosecutor, who is not likely to jump the bail, may be granted bail on merits as well as on the ground of parity.
5. The learned A. P. P. duly assisted by the Advocate for the informant opposes the application. She submits that there is a suicide note wherein the deceased has specifically attributed the cause of death to the harassment by the applicant. In view of such suicide note, there is primafacie substance to proceed against the applicant. The investigation cannot be completed except by resorting to his custodial interrogation. Merely because the married sisters have been granted bail by the Sessions Court, the applicant cannot derive any benefit. The application may be rejected.
6. I have carefully gone through the papers of the investigation. 3 ::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2020 00:09:30 :::
20 ABA No 214 of 2020.odt At the outset, it is necessary to note that there being a suicide note wherein the deceased has attributed the cause which led her to commit suicide to the harassment meted out to her by the applicant, primafacie there is indeed substance. Obviously, the question as to the nature of the harassment is a matter to be investigated. Custodial interrogation of the applicant does seem to be imperative. Whether it would ultimately be an offence punishable under Section 304-B or 306 of the Indian Penal Code, can be concluded only after investigation. At this juncture no importance can be attached to this issue.
7. So far as parity is concerned, the other accused are married sisters of the applicant and are also women. In my considered view, the applicant does not sail in the same boat.
8. The application is rejected.
[ MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] SSTare 4 ::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2020 00:09:30 :::