IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.773 OF 2018
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.547 OF 2018
Revan Sudam Kanhere and anr. … Applicants
The State of Maharashtra and anr. … Respondents
Mr.Satyavart Joshi a/w. Mr. Nitesh Mohite i/b. Mr.Jaydeep D. Mane for
Mr.S.V. Gavand, APP for the respondent/State.
CORAM : A.M.BADAR J.
DATED : 12th SEPTEMBER 2018.
1. This is an application on behalf of husband and mother-in-law for
enlarging them on bail. They both are convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 306 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicants are sentenced
to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years apart from direction to
pay fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default to undergo further rigorous
imprisonment for three months. For the offence punishable under
Vina k 1/5
Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the
applicants are directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
years apart from payment of fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to
undergo fifteen days rigorous imprisonment.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, at the outset
submits that he has instructions not to press the application for
applicant no.1 Revan Sudam Kanhere and the application to that be
disposed of with a liberty to the applicant no.1 to approach again if the
appeal is not listed for hearing within a period of one year. The learned
Counsel for the applicants further argued that evidence of the first
informant/PW1 Alka Garad shows that the accused persons were
having well constructed house and irrigated land. As such there was no
reason for them to demand an amount of Rs.50,000/- for construction
of house and another amount of Rs.50,000/- towards construction of
well in the field. There is no evidence to reflect abetment on the part of
the applicant no.2. Hence, applicant no.2 is entitled to be released on
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application
by contending that considering social impact of crime in question as
well as fact that applicant no.2 Rajabai Sudam Kanhere had been to the
Vina k 2/5
parental house of the deceased for demand of Rs.50,000/-, hence she is
not entitled for bail.
4. I have carefully considered the submission so advanced and
perused the impugned judgment and order as well as copies of
deposition of witnesses.
5. Rekha (since deceased) was married to accused no.1 Revan
Sudam Kanhere on 15th June, 2012. She was left at her parental house
by accused no.1 Revan on 21 st May, 2014. She consumed poison in the
filed on 22nd May, 2014 and died suicidal death on 26 th May, 2014. On
5th June, 2014, the First Information Report came to be lodged by PW 1
Alka Garad who happens to be mother of deceased Rekha.
6. As the application so far it relates to applicant no.1 Revan is not
pressed, I have not considered evidence against him. The first informant
Alka Garad is material witness in the instant case. So far as it relates to
averments and allegations against applicant no.2/accused no.3 Rajabai
Kanhere, it is alleged by PW1 Alka Garad that eight months after
marriage, applicant no.2 Rajabai alongwith Rekha (since deceased) had
been to her house for demand of Rs.50,000/- for construction of house
Vina k 3/5
and at that time Rekha had told her, accused persons are harassing her
on account of demand of money. The subsequent part of evidence of
PW1 Alka Garad shows that it was accused no.1 Revan who had left his
wife Rekha at the parental house under threat, she should not return
unless and until she bring Rs.50,000/- for construction of the well.
Prima facie, it appears that the act of applicant no.2/accused no.3
Rajabai in demanding the amount of Rs.50,000/-, eight months after
marriage of her son Revan no immediate nexus with commission of
suicide by Rekha in a month of May, 2014. Considering the nature of
evidence against applicant no.2/accused no.3 Rajabai who happens to
be mother-in-law of the deceased, she deserves to be released on bail;
Hence, the order;
:: ORDER :;
(i) The application so far it relates to accused no.1 Revan Sudam
Kanhere is disposed of as not pressed with a liberty to him to
approach this Court after one year if the appeal is not listed
(ii) The application so far it relates to applicant no.2/accused
no.3 Rajabai Sudam Kanhere is allowed.
(iii) Substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the
applicant no.2 Rajabai Sudam Kanhere is suspended and she
Vina k 4/5
is directed to be released on bail on her executing P.R. Bond
in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on furnishing surety in the
like amount by her.
(iv) The application is disposed of accordingly.
Vina Vina Arvind
Khadpe 2018.09.11 (A.M.BADAR J.)
Vina k 5/5