51 ba 3310 of 2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO.3310 OF 2021

Bharat Dhavala Jadhav

…

Applicant

versus

The State of Maharashtra

…

Respondent

Mr. Raj Jayasing Khude, for Applicant.

Ms. P.N.Dabholkar, APP, for State.

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

DATE :

15

th JUNE, 2022

P.C.

1.

This Application is preferred to enlarge the Applicant-accused on bail.

2.

The Applicant is arraigned for the ofences punishable under Sections 302 and

201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for having committed murder of his wife and

caused disappearance of evidence with a view to screen himself from the legal

punishment.

3.

The marriage of the Applicant was solemnized with Pramila (deceased) two

years prior to the occurrence. A month prior to the occurrence, the Applicant and the

deceased had started to reside in Flat No.1002, C Wing, Mhada Building No.10,

Pathardi Shivar, Nashik, the premises of Mr. Sachin Devram Zole, a nephew of Mr.

Tanaji Kachare, the first informant. On 24

th October, 2020 at about 3.15 p.m., the first

informant’s sister called and informed the first informant that the Applicant had called

and apprised her that the deceased was done to death while the Applicant had gone for

SSP 1/7

SWAROOP

SHARAD

PHADKE

Digitally signed by

SWAROOP

SHARAD PHADKE

Date: 2022.06.18

11:41:40 +0530

51 ba 3310 of 2021.doc

work. After visiting the house of the deceased and noticing the situation thereat,

including the condition of the body of the deceased, the first informant entertained

suspicion about the veracity of the claim of the Applicant. Hence, the first informant

lodged a report against the Applicant, alleging that for some reason, it was the

Applicant who had killed the deceased.

4.

During the course of investigation, the Investigating Ofcer interrogated the

witnesses and recorded their statements. The Investigating Ofcer took the assistance

of the dog squad and the identity of the Applicant was revealed as the killer of the

deceased during the course of dog tracking. Post completion of investigation, charge-

sheet came to be lodged.

5.

I have heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for

the State.

6.

The learned Advocate for the Applicant submitted that there is no material to

establish the nexus between the ofence and the Applicant. None of the prosecution

witnesses has deposed about the martial discord. Nor any incident prior to the

occurrence, which could give rise to a credible suspicion, is stated by any of the

prosecution witnesses. The instant case, according to the learned Advocate for the

Applicant, is one of no evidence.

7.

Per contra, the learned APP would urge that the first informant had highlighted

the circumstances which roused the suspicion about the version narrated by the

SSP 2/7

51 ba 3310 of 2021.doc

Applicant and there are statements of the witnesses which indicate that, on the day of

the occurrence, no visitor visited the premises, except the owner of the said building.

Laying emphasis on the dog tracking report, in the backdrop of the fact that it was the

Applicant alone who was residing with the deceased, it was submitted that it cannot be

said that there is no material to prima facie establish the nexus of the Applicant The

fact that during the course of the Applicant’s medical examination on 25

th October,

2020, an abrasion was noticed on the left arm, above elbow joint anterior side, was also

pressed into service, to incriminate the Applicant.

8.

I have carefully perused the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure and the documents annexed with it. Few facts appear to be rather

uncontroverted. The Applicant and the deceased had shifted to Flat No.1002, C

Wing, Mhada Building N