Allowed

Ankush Gotiram Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Feb 2014APPLN/668/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal bail application filed by an accused in a dowry death case. The High Court examined the post-mortem and medical evidence, noting insufficient proof of murder or poisoning. The court held that keeping the applicant in custody was undesirable and granted bail upon furnishing surety.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail on furnishing PR and SB of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety of like amount.

Ankush Gotiram Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 Application 668 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Criminal Application No.668 of 2014

¶4

Ankush S/o. Gotiram Pawar.

¶5

.. Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra.

¶8

.. Respondent.

¶9

Shri. S.B. Rajebhosale, Advocate, for applicant.

¶10

Shri. B.L. Dhus, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent.

¶11

CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATE : 20^th FEBRUARY 2014

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This application is filed for bail. Both the sides are heard. This Court has perused the papers of investigation.

¶14

Crime is registered on the basis of report given by father of the deceased. The deceased was given in marriage to the applicant on 3-6-2013. Allegations are made that dowry of Rs. four lakh was given in the

¶15

2 Application 668 of 2014

¶16

marriage and remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- was to be given by the parents of the deceased. Allegations are made that as the amount of Rs.50,000/- was not given, there was harassment to the deceased. Allegations are made that deceased used to disclose that her husband and relatives were giving beating to her. Allegations are made that the father had given promise to pay remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- after harvesting the crops but the ill treatment was continued. On 2-10-2013 the deceased consumed poison when she was in her matrimonial house.

¶17

The deceased was shifted to Government Hospital by the applicant and relatives but she was declared as dead. It is the case of the complainant that when he reached the hospital after learning about the incident he found that deceased was kept in a van near hospital and there was nobody to attend her. There are statements to the effect that there was ill-treatment to the deceased and the mother had expressed suspicion even of murder.

¶18

This Court has perused the post mortem report and the spot panchanama. Bottle of poison was found on the spot. The Post mortem report shows that three

¶19

3 Application 668 of 2014

¶20

contusions were present on the head. However, the death did not take place due to the injuries to head or brain. Viscera is preserved and is sent to Chemical Analyzer's office. The record is not sufficient even at this stage to hold the probable death as due to poisoning.

¶21

There is statement of the driver of the van in which the deceased was carried to the hospital. It shows possibility of sustaining contusion etc during transit. There was no soft material kept in the pick-up van wherein deceased was kept.

¶22

The applicant is behind the bars since 5-10-2013. In view of the nature of material collected against the applicant, this Court holds that it is not desirable to keep the applicant behind the bars till the disposal of the case which is filed against him.

¶23

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that presumption under section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can be used against the applicant as the death took place within two months of the marriage.

¶24

4 Application 668 of 2014

¶25

In view of the material collected, this Court holds that bail needs to be granted. In the result, application is allowed. The applicant is to be released on bail in Crime No.I-140/2013 registered at Chikalthana police Station, District Aurangabad for offence under sections 304-B, 498-A, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code on his furnishing PR and SB of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount. The applicant is not to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. He is not to go to the village of the complainant till disposal of the case.

¶26

Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)

¶27

rsl

Ankush Gotiram Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankush Gotiram Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandip Prakash Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pundlik Ravan Gaikwadbhil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Hanumant Narayan Giri Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gokul Baburao Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Datta @ Dattu Baburao Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vijay Balbhim Ajabe Vs the State of Maharashtra