1
Cri.BailAppln.No.1058/22­Ex.1
Order below Exh.1 in Cri. Bail Application No.1058/ 2022

Ravindra Govindrao Alhate .. Applicant Accused.

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra through PI Mhasrul Police St. (Cr. No. I 85/2022) .. Respondent.

Order below Exh. 1

1.The applicant/accused Ravindra Govindra Alhate claims bail in C.R. No. I­85/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Mhasrul Police Station.

2.Heard Learned Advocate Shri M.Y.Kale, for the applicant, learned A.P.P. Smt. Jadhav for the State. Perused the papers of investigation.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant has harassed the deceased to such an extent that she was left with no other option but to commit suicide and accordingly, accused abated the commission of suicide by the deceased.

4. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that there is delay of two days to lodge report.

Deceased was residing with her husband but then, report is filed by her father.

Applicant has no direct concern with the deceased. He has not instigated or abated the commission of suicide. recovery from the applicant. There is no any He has been falsely implicated.

Chit recovered from the house of deceased reflects that the deceased had love­affair with the applicant.

There is no any material to show that the applicant instigated or abated the commission of suicide by the deceased. Now, charge­sheet is filed and thereby investigation is complete.

No purpose would be served by languishing the applicant behind bar.

Therefore, ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that applicant be released on bail.

5.Per contra, ld. APP resisted the application with the contention that the offence committed by the applicant is very much serious in nature. During the investigation, investigating officer has recovered one chit which was written by the applicant to the deceased.

This shows that applicant was continuously harassing the deceased.

Prima facie concern of the applicant with alleged offence, is thus become clear.

Therefore, ld. APP requested to reject the application.

6. I have perused the application and papers of investigation. There are specific averments in the report that informant who is the father of the deceased, was aware about the harassment at the hands of applicant to the deceased.

He has warned the accused to that effect but there was no change in the behaviour of accused.
mother of two children.

Deceased was married lady and the Chit written by the applicant to the deceased indicates that he was in deep love with the deceased and therefore, insisting her to be with him in relationship.

The chit also indicates that deceased was reluctant to proceed with. She has stopped the relations with the applicant­accused. Prima facie it reveals that accused continued to pressurize the deceased and therefore, she was left with no other option but to end her life.

As such, prima facie concerned of the applicant with the alleged serious offence is clear.

On these amongst grounds, previous bail filed by the applicant was rejected.

7.Now, charge­sheet has been filed but there is no any other change in circumstance put­forth by the learned Advocate for the applicant which could be considered for his successive bail application. There are statements of witnesses which indicate that the applicant had some photographs of the deceased and he used to threaten the deceased to viral the same and to defame her. Such conduct of the applicant who is a major person of 37 years old, is certainly prima facie appears to be offending one.
He was well aware about the marital status of the deceased and that she has children. Deceased was reluctant to proceed with the relationships with the applicant but then, applicant was harassing her to continue the same. Therefore, his such conduct is prima facie appears to be sufficient to show that there was intentional aid by the applicant to the deceased to commit suicide. Offence allegedly committed by the applicant is serious in nature. If the applicant would be released on bail, he may
pressurize the witnesses and tamper with the prosecution evidence. Considering all these aspects, this Court is of the view that the application filed by the applicant being devoid of merit, deserves to be rejected. Hence, the order.

: ORDER :
Application (Exh.1) stands rejected.

ADITEE UDAY KADAM Nashik. Date : 05.09.2022. Digitally signed by ADITEE UDAY KADAM Date: 2022.09.06 10:56:48 0600 (Aditee U. Kadam) Additional Sessions Judge­ 2, Nashik.