Santosh Baliram Karhale v. The State Of Maharashtra

2024:BHC-AUG:15387 ba-650.24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 946 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 650 OF 2024 SANTOSH BALIRAM KARHALE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...

Mr. Madhav K. Jadhav Advocate for Applicant.

Ms. P.R. Bharaswadkar, A.P.P. for Respondent. ...

CORAM: S.G. MEHARE, J.

DATE : 20th JULY, 2024 ORDER :

1.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State.

2.

The applicant seeks bail in Crime No. 223 of 2023 registered with Hingoli (Rural) Police Station, District-Hingoli for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime. He did not commit the murder of his wife. The son, who was in the adjacent

ba-650.24 room, did not hear the noise. The applicant has no antecedents to his discredit. Hence, he may be granted bail. 4.

Learned APP would submit that deceased was in the custody of the applicant. She was strangulated and found dead in the house where she was residing with the applicant. The evidence and the postmortem report reveals that she was strangulated. Since she was strangulated, there was no possibility of hearing noise by the son. The applicant was taking suspicion over the chastity of the deceased. Overall evidence against the applicant is concrete. He does not deserve bail. 5.

Perused the charge-sheet. Dead body was found in the house where the deceased and applicant were residing. The investigation papers reveal that she was strangulated. The deceased was lastly in the custody of the accused. Therefore, the legal presumption runs against him. The offence is serious. Hence, the applicant does not deserve bail. The Application stands dismissed.

[ S.G. MEHARE, J. ] asb/JULY24