Bombay High Court
Ramesh Sahebrao Warpe vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 October, 2021
Bench: M. G. Sewlikar
ba1081.21.odt
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1081 OF 2021
Ramesh s/o Sahebrao Warpe Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Respondent
Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. S.D. Ghayal, APP for respondent/State.
Mr. S.A. Patil, Advocate holding for Mr. M.V. Salunke, Advocate for
the informant.
CORAM : M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.
DATE : 8th October, 2021.
PER COURT :
1. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for releasing the applicant on bail.
2. Prosecution case as detailed in the First Information
Report is that deceased Sunanda was the wife of the applicant. Their
marriage was performed on 3rd December, 2019. It was agreed in the
marriage that informant should gift a golden ring and should pay
ba1081.21.odt
cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- as and when the informant received it.
Deceased Sunanda was maintained well for a period of fve to six
months after marriage. Thereafter, her in laws and two sisters of
applicant started saying that she should bring Rs.2,00,000/- from
her parents towards remaining dowry. It is further alleged that they
used to harass her physically and mentally and used to pass
sarcastic comments at her and used to say that her husband would
beat her. At the time of Dipawali 2020, the deceased had come to her
maternal place. At that time also, she had said that her husband
and in laws harass her for failure to meet their unlawful demand. At
the time of Dipawali 2020, applicant had come to take her back. He
had taken her back to her matrimonial place at Pimpalner. After four
to fve days, applicant called up on the cell phone of the informant,
brother of the deceased, and told him that when he had come to the
maternal place of the deceased Sunanda for taking her back, the
informant and his brother did not stay back. He abused saying that
informant and his brother are shameless and they have no manners.
Applicant and his brother-in-law had come to the place of the
informant in inebriated condition. His mother offered tea to the
applicant, which he refused.
ba1081.21.odt
3. It is further alleged that on 6th December, 2020, younger
brother of the informant called up the informant and told him that
deceased Sunanda had consumed poison. Thereafter informant went
to the Government Hospital, Beed. He learnt in the hospital that at
2.30 pm in the feld cultivated on batai by the applicant, the
deceased had consumed poison. She was admitted in the hospital
and was not in a position to speak. She died after few hours of her
admission. Accordingly, First Information Report was lodged on 7 th
December, 2020.
4. Charge-sheet has been fled against the applicant and
other members of his family under Section 498(A), 304(B), 306, 323
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Heard Shri Salunke, learned counsel for the applicant,
Shri Ghayal, learned APP for the State and Shri Patil, learned
counsel for the informant.
6. Shri Salunke, learned counsel for the applicant submits
that general allegations are made against the applicant. No details as
regards ill-treatment are mentioned in the First Information Report.
ba1081.21.odt
It is vaguely mentioned that all the accused used to harass the
deceased. He submits that First Information Report does not say
that deceased had weal marks on account of ill-treatment when she
had come for Dipawali. But the witnesses say about it. He submits
that if really the deceased had any such ill-treatment and she had
weal marks it is a major circumstance which ought to have been
mentioned in the First Information Report. He submits that the span
of marriage is of one year only. He submits that considering the
nature of evidence collected by the prosecution, the applicant
deserves to be released on bail.
7. Shri Ghayal, learned APP and Shri Patil, learned counsel
for the informant submit that the span of marriage is only of one
year. All the witnesses have stated that applicant and his relatives
had subjected the deceased to cruelty. They submit that Dipawali of
the year 2020 was in the month of November and the deceased died
on 6th December, 2020. They submit that this circumstance
indicates that soon before her death, she was subjected to ill-
treatment. They further submit that presumption under Section
113B of Evidence Act can be appropriately raised in this case even at
the stage of bail. They placed reliance on judgments in the case of
ba1081.21.odt
Maya Devi and another vs. State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.
1263/2021, Ajay Singh vs. State reported in 1998 Cri.L.J. 3178, Raja
Lal Singh vs. State of Jharkhand reported in AIR 2007 Supreme
Court 2154, Kashmira Devi vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in
2020 Cri.L.J. 1343.
8. Charge-sheet has been fled. Applicant was arrested on
7th December, 2020. Therefore, further detention of the applicant is
not warranted. Other accused have been released on regular bail.
Admittedly, the deceased died due to consumption of poisonous
substance.
9. On perusal of First Information Report, it is seen that the
allegations against the applicant are general in nature. In the case of
Neelu Chopra and others vs. Bharti reported in
MANU/SC/1733/2009, the Honourable Supreme Court has dealt
with this aspect of the matter. In paragraph No. 5 of the judgment,
the Honourable Supreme Court has held thus :-
5. In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere
mention of the sections and the language of those
sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is
required to be brought to the notice of the court is
the particulars of the offence committed by each and
ba1081.21.odt
every accused and the role played by each and every
accused in committing of what offence. When we
see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It
does not show as to which accused has committed
what offence and what is the exact role played by
these appellants in the commission of offence.
All these details are lacking in the First Information
Report. Particulars of offence committed by each of the accused and
the role played by each of the accused in committing the offence is
not mentioned. First Information Report also does not mention as to
which accused committed what offence and what is the exact role
played by the accused in commission of the offence. In the case at
hand, it is vaguely mentioned that the applicant and his relatives had
harassed the deceased and she was subjected to ill-treatment.
10. In the case of Geeta Mehrotra and others vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh an others reported in AIR 2013 SC 181, it has been
held thus :-
"19. Coming to the facts of this case, when the
contents of the FIR is perused, it is apparent that
there are no allegations against Kumari Geeta
Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra except casual reference
of their names who have been included in the FIR but
mere casual reference of the names of the family
members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation
of active involvement in the matter would not justify
taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact
ba1081.21.odt
borne out of experience that there is a tendency to
involve the entire family members of the household in
the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial
dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.
11. In the case at hand, no role is ascribed to the applicant.
It is vaguely mentioned that deceased was subjected to beating. It is
pertinent to note that after 4 to 5 days of Dipawali, applicant had
come to take the deceased back. First Information Report shows that
at that time, applicant was not given due honour and that had made
the applicant upset. He had threatened the informant, brother of the
deceased, that both the informant and his brother had no manners
and they are shameless and when he had come to their house, they
were not in the house. Thereafter this incident seems to have taken
place. So the tenor of the First Information Report does not show
that there is any proximity between ill-treatment and death.
12. In the case of Kashmiradevi (Supra), the mother-in-law
allegedly killed her daughter-in-law due to non-fulflment of dowry
demand and there was evidence that soon before her death she was
subjected to ill-treatment. She had given multiple dying declarations.
This is not the factual position in the instant case. Moreover, this is
not a case for bail.
ba1081.21.odt
13. The authorities cited are not on bail but they are after
full-fledged trial. The applicant is in jail for more than ten months.
Offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is punishable
with imprisonment which shall not be less than seven years but
which may extend to imprisonment for life. Offence under Section
306 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment which
may extend to ten years. There is nothing on record to show that
applicant has criminal antecedents. He will be available for trial.
Having regard to this, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.
Hence the following order :-
ORDER
i) Application is allowed.
ii) Applicant be released on PR Bond of
Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one
solvent surety in the like amount in connection with
Crime No. 0335/2020 registered with Pimpalner
Police Station, Dist. Beed, for the offences
punishable under Section 498(A), 304(B), 306, 323
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
iii) Application stands disposed of.
ba1081.21.odt
iv) It is clarifed that the observations made in
the above order are restricted to the decision of this
application only and the trial Court shall not get
influenced by the same and can come to its
independent conclusion during trial.
( M. G. SEWLIKAR )
Judge
dyb
ba1081.21.odt
- 10 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1965 OF 2021 IN
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1081 OF 2021
Dnyaneshwar Devakram Bhosle Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & another Respondents
Mr. S.A. Patil, Advocate holding for Mr. M.V. Salunke, Advocate for
the applicant.
Mr. S.D. Ghayal, APP for the State.
Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
CORAM : M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.
DATE : 8th October, 2021.
PER COURT :
Application is allowed and accordingly stands disposed of.
( M. G. SEWLIKAR )
Judge
dyb
