1

ba.124.12.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Criminal Application [BA] No.124 of 2012

(Sinnu @ Pullayya S/o. Ramrayya Kannuri Vs. State of Maharashtra)

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

Appearances, Courts orders or directions

Court’s or Judge’s orders

and Registrar’s orders.

Mr. S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. A.M. Deshpande, APP for the non-applicant/State.

CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J.

DATE : MARCH 14, 2012.

The application is pressed for grant of bail in

connection with Crime No. 85/2011 reported at Police

Station Rajura, District Chandrapur for the offence

punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B read with Section

34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It appears that FIR was registered on the basis of

complaint by one Ellayuya Kampelly, alleging that deceased

Sushma, aged about 32 years, who had married with the

present applicant couple of years prior to the incident, was

demanded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Non compliance of

demand by the father of deceased resulted in harassment to

deceased Sushma and constrained her to consume Super

Vasmol Hair Oil, which led to her death.

Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that no

suicide note, as such, has been relied upon by the

2

ba.124.12.odt

prosecution in order to substantiate its version that applicant

is liable for death of his wife or that the applicant was

involved in any demand in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.

Further it is submitted that death was not caused by any

poison allegedly brought by the applicant or his family

members, but it was caused allegedly due to consumption of

Super Vasmol Hair Oil. It is submitted that other co-accused

were granted bail by this Court vide order dated 2^nd August,

2011 in Criminal Application [BA] No.392/2011 and,

therefore, the applicant may be granted bail on the ground of

parity.

Learned APP objected for grant of bail on the ground

that previously bail application was filed bearing No.

631/2011, but it was withdrawn by learned Advocate for the

applicant with liberty to file fresh application and

accordingly permission was granted to withdraw the same.

In my mind, this objection for grant of bail is not sustainable

as the order dated 17/01/2012 passed by this Court is not

indicating as to whether withdrawal was sought after

hearing the submission of the learned Advocate for the

applicant. Be that as it may, liberty was granted to file fresh

application, therefore, it is necessary to examine the same on

merits.

3

ba.124.12.odt

On merits, learned APP could not point out any

material such as suicide note or evidence in respect of

communication between deceased and her parents, brother,

sister etc. as regard to dowry or harassment made, if any, by

the in-laws or the applicant. The circumstances also indicate

that deceased-Sushma had consumed hair oil which led to

her death. In the absence of any material to point out that

applicant was instrumental to instigate Sushma to consume

heir oil, I think probability of his conviction for the offence

punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 498-A of

the Indian Penal Code, appears remote at this stage. Of

course, it is for the prosecution to lead appropriate evidence

in the trial Court and the trial Court can examine the same

on merits. At this stage, however, benefit of bail cannot be

denied to the applicant although accusations are serious.

Hence, the following order.

i.

The applicant shall be released on bail on his executing P.

R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five

Thousand Only) with one or more sureties in the like

amount.

ii. He shall attend the police station concerned as and when

required by the Investigating Officer until charge-sheet is

filed.

4

ba.124.12.odt

iii. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in