Krishna Santram Parit v. The Senior Inspector Of Police And ANR

VPH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 274 OF 2018 Krishna Santaram Parit ...

Applicant Vs.

The State of Maharashtra ...

Respondent *** Ms. Gayatri Gokhale i/b Sagar Shethe, for the Applicant. Mr. Rohan Barge, for Intervenor.

Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for Respondent - State.

*** CORAM : P. N. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : MARCH 7, 2018 PC :- 1.

Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for Intervenor. This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by sole accused. Applicant is involved in C. R. No. 18 of 2018 registered with Mohol Police Station, district Solapur, for offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. Applicant is cousin brother of deceased. A report is lodged by complainant Premnath, who is real brother of deceased Ranjana. Learned counsel for Applicant referring to the contents of FIR has

submitted that said contents do not establish ingredients to attract the registered offence. Learned counsel for Applicant further demonstrated that there is no evidence to establish involvement of Applicant in deceased committing suicide. He was in no manner abated for commission of suicide. By referring to contents of report, with regard to information given to complainant by his niece Gayatri, aged 6 years, it is submitted that said contents do not inspire confidence, which are alleged to have been stated on the next day of incidence of committing suicide, and has therefore, prayed that application may be allowed.

2.

Learned counsel for Intervenor Prathmesh has stated that there are statement of neighbours establishing involvement of Applicant and has also referred to statement of Gayatri recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. which establishes involvement of Applicant in the present crime, therefore, prayed that anticipatory bail application be rejected.

3.

In the background of statements as aforesaid, from the report it reveals that complainant has received information of involvement of Applicant from Ms. Gayatri, aged 6 years on the following day of incident that Applicant had quarrel with deceased

and attempted to burn hand of deceased on the fire pan. Rest of the contents in the report are about Applicant's contacting deceased on phone. Contacts by Applicant on phone are not disputed, in view of the fact that they are related as cousin. However, it is material to note that the contents of report are totally silent as to when quarrel had taken place between Applicant and deceased on the fateful day. 4.

Similarly, though in statement of Gayatri recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. in which she has stated that Applicant had aided commission of suicide by helping deceased while she hanged herself by assisting her to stand on the cot, all such contents of her statement recorded on 10.1.2018 are silent when she claims to have informed about the incident on 2nd January, 2018. Prima-facie, it is, therefore, found that contents of statement of Gayatri recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. are afterthought.

5.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon statement of neighbours. However, their statements only establish the Applicant's proceeding on motor-cycle from the house of deceased at 7.30 and then at 8.00 p.m.

6.

Having considered statements as aforesaid, there is no

sufficient evidence to establish involvement of Applicant to abate commission of suicide. In that view of the matter, application is allowed as per following order. Ad-interim relief in force stands confirmed. However, Applicant is directed to attend the Investigating Officer, if required, till filing of charge-sheet. Sd/- [P. N. DESHMUKH, J.] Vinayak Halemath