Somnath Shankar Dighe v. The State Of Maharashtra
{1} BA 33 OF 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 932 BAIL APPLICATION NO.33 OF 2022 Somnath Shankar Dighe Age: 38 years, Occu.: Agriculture, R/o. Panodi, Tal.Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar.
..Applicant/Petitioner (Org. Accused)
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Ofcer, Ashvi Police Station, Dist.Ahmednagar.
..Respondent ...
Advocate for Applicant : Shri Z.H.Farooqui h/f. Shri Niteen V. Gaware APP for Respondent : Shri G.O.Wattamwar ...
CORAM : M.G.SEWLIKAR, J.
DATE: 23rd February, 2022 PER COURT :- 1.
Heard.
2.
Prosecution's case in brief is that applicant is the husband of deceased Anita. Informant is the brother of deceased Anita. Marriage of applicant with the deceased was performed about 16 years ago. The couple has three children aged 14, 12 and 10 years respectively. It is alleged in the FIR that the deceased was maintained well for two years. Thereafter, applicant started ill-
{2} BA 33 OF 2022 treating her on trivial grounds. After three years of marriage, applicant started demanding money to be brought from her parents for purchasing a cow. Since the informant did not have sufcient money, he gifted his own cow to the applicant. Thereafter, the deceased was maintained well for a period of three years. Again applicant started demanding money for purchasing a Motorcycle and on that count he was insisting on the deceased to bring Rs.50,000/- from her parents. About four months before the incident, the informant had paid Rs.10,000/- to the applicant.
3.
It is further alleged that on 27th February, 2021 at 01:00 p.m., the informant got a phone call from Sanjay Jadhav informing him that the deceased was admitted in Pravara Hospital, Loni. Therefore, the informant, his parents, his sister and other relatives went to Pravara Hospital, Loni. Informant was told in Pravara Hospital, Loni that the deceased was no more. The deceased had injury on her head. She had injury on her right eye. She was lying in a pool of blood. The informant has alleged that applicant killed the deceased for dowry. 4.
Shri Z.H.Farooqui, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, at the time of the incident, was holding a
{3} BA 33 OF 2022 wooden rod in his hands. The injury caused to the deceased, as per the post mortem report, was incised wound. Incised wound is not possible by means of a wooden rod. He submits that applicant has some psychological problem and therefore, applicant is taking treatment for the same. Said treatment may not be available in the prison. Therefore, he seeks release of the applicant on bail.
5.
Shri G.O.Wattamwar, learned APP for the respondent-State supported the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner.
6.
Charge-sheet is fled. It is not in dispute that at the time of the incident the deceased was in the house. Applicant was also there in the house. Mother of the applicant, who was present at the time of the incident, has stated in her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that she heard screams. When she went inside the house, she found that the deceased had bleeding injury on her head and applicant was standing there with a wooden rod. On seeing his mother, the applicant ran away. Post mortem report shows cause of death as head injury. Admittedly, deceased died when she was in the custody of the applicant. Whether the incised would is possible
{4} BA 33 OF 2022 by means of wooden rod is the aspect which can be gone into during the trial. Considering the evidence collected by the prosecution, it can be said that there is a prima-facie case against the applicant. I am, therefore, not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Hence, the order :-
ORDER
i) Bail Application is dismissed.
ii) It is clarifed that the observations made in this order are restricted to the decision of this application only and the trial Court shall not get infuenced by the same and can come to its independent conclusion during trial. ( M.G.SEWLIKAR ) JUDGE SPT