NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURSIDCITON
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.505_OF 2017
(Arising out of S.L.P. (CRL) No.4831 of 2016
PRASSANNA VENKARDARI AGRAHAR … APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENT
O R D E R
S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.
1 Leave granted.
2 This appeal is directed against the order dated 15th June, 2016
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 841 of 2016, whereby the High Court rejected the
application filed by the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail. The
appellant is a doctor by profession and specialized in neuro surgery. He
was practicing at Ahmed Nagar but shifted to Solapur in the year 2012 and
is practicing as Neuro Surgeon in Solapur. He married to Ms. Rashmi, who
was also a doctor. It is the case of the appellant that his wife was
suffering from chronic diabetes and was under treatment. She died on 9th
July, 2015 at about 1.00 a.m. The appellant informed this fact to her
parents who had come to Solapur on the next day and after due consideration
and affirmation that the death of Rashmi was natural due to heart failure,
they all decided to cremate her. After a passage of about one month, an
anonymous letter addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Solapur stating
that the appellant had extra-marital affairs with one Megh Roy Chodhuri and
in order to obtain benefit of insurance policy which was in the name of the
deceased Rashmi, the appellant committed her murder. It is further
contended that on the basis of the said letter an inquiry had been
initiated and the appellant had been summoned for inquiry. The police has
been repeatedly visiting his house for interrogation and he is having
apprehension that the police will register offence against him and he would
be arrested. Therefore, he filed Criminal Bail Application 472/16 before
the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Solapur. The District &
Sessions Judge by order dated 3.5.2016 rejected the application.
3 The appellant moved the High Court by filing an application for grant
of anticipatory bail in Criminal Application No.841 of 2016. The High
Court dismissed the application by order dated 15.6.2016.
4 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a
doctor by profession and is a renowned neuro surgeon attached to Gangamai
Hospital, Solapur and his wife was also a doctor. He was married to Rashmi
in the year 2010 and they have a son by name Neerav, who was born in April,
2012 and who is mentally challenged. Ms. Rashmi was diabetic and she was
being treated by consulting Dr. Mule. She suffered a heart attack in the
intervening night of 8-9.7.2015 and hence was examined by one doctor
Prabhakaran. Since she was found dead, Dr. Prabhakaran issued a medical
certificate to that effect. The parents of the deceased wife of the
appellant were immediately informed and they came to Solapur on 9.7.2015,
after having satisfied that her death was natural, took a collective
decision along with the appellant not to perform post-mortem. In-laws of
the appellant had sworn an affidavit on 14.7.2015 and 6.4.2016 about the
natural death of the wife of the appellant. This affidavit was required
for cancellation of their tickets from Bangalore to Frankfurt and for
refund. After more than a month in August, 2015, on the basis of an
anonymous letter sent to the Commissioner of Police, Solapur raising
suspicion about the death of the wife of the appellant and that the
appellant had extra-marital affairs, therefore he committed murder of his
wife, appellant was interrogated by the police. He has cooperated with the
police during investigation. The appellant has not committed any offence
as alleged. Therefore, the High Court is not justified in rejecting the
application of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail.
5 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits
that the wife of the appellant had died in suspicious circumstances. The
appellant took disadvantage of his position as doctor and himself issued
medical certificate about death of his wife and showed that his wife died
natural death. It is further submitted that the police received an
anonymous letter on 28.8.2015 stating that the appellant gave an injection
to his wife and killed her. Without conducting post mortem, the body of
the deceased was cremated in an electric crematorium. Thereafter,
appellant obtained death certificate and took the insurance claim of the
deceased. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the High
Court has rightly rejected the application.
6 It is not disputed that more than a month after the death of Dr.
Rashmi, wife of the deceased the respondent has registered a case on the
basis of an anonymous letter. Immediately after the death of Dr. Rashmi,
her parents were informed by the appellant about her death and they had
come to Solapur. The parents of the deceased have not lodged any complaint
against the accused. Father-in-law of the appellant has sworn to an
affidavit that she was living a happy married life with the appellant and
that she had died a natural death. Therefore, he has no objection for her
funeral without post mortem. It is also necessary to state here that the
appellant has no criminal antecedents.
7 In the circumstances, the High Court was not justified in rejecting
the application of the appellant. We are of the view that it is just and
proper to grant an order of anticipatory bail to the appellant. Therefore,
the order of the High Court in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 841 of
2016 is set aside.
8 In view of the above, we direct that in the event of arrest, the
appellant shall be released on bail on execution of personal bond for
Rupees one lakh with sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
investigating officer. The appellant shall not tamper the witnesses of the
prosecution and shall appear before the investigating officer/court as and
when required.
9 It is needless to clarify that the observations made herein are only
for the purpose of disposing of this appeal and will not influence the
investigation or trial.
10 The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
…………………………………………J.
(J. CHELAMESWAR)
…………………………………………J.
(S. ABDUL NAZEER)
New Delhi
March 09, 2017
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURSIDCITON
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.505_OF 2017
(Arising out of S.L.P. (CRL) No.4831 of 2016
PRASSANNA VENKARDARI AGRAHAR … APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENT
O R D E R
S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.
1 Leave granted.
2 This appeal is directed against the order dated 15th June, 2016
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 841 of 2016, whereby the High Court rejected the
application filed by the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail. The
appellant is a doctor by profession and specialized in neuro surgery. He
was practicing at Ahmed Nagar but shifted to Solapur in the year 2012 and
is practicing as Neuro Surgeon in Solapur. He married to Ms. Rashmi, who
was also a doctor. It is the case of the appellant that his wife was
suffering from chronic diabetes and was under treatment. She died on 9th
July, 2015 at about 1.00 a.m. The appellant informed this fact to her
parents who had come to Solapur on the next day and after due consideration
and affirmation that the death of Rashmi was natural due to heart failure,
they all decided to cremate her. After a passage of about one month, an
anonymous letter addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Solapur stating
that the appellant had extra-marital affairs with one Megh Roy Chodhuri and
in order to obtain benefit of insurance policy which was in the name of the
deceased Rashmi, the appellant committed her murder. It is further
contended that on the basis of the said letter an inquiry had been
initiated and the appellant had been summoned for inquiry. The police has
been repeatedly visiting his house for interrogation and he is having
apprehension that the police will register offence against him and he would
be arrested. Therefore, he filed Criminal Bail Application 472/16 before
the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Solapur. The District &
Sessions Judge by order dated 3.5.2016 rejected the application.
3 The appellant moved the High Court by filing an application for grant
of anticipatory bail in Criminal Application No.841 of 2016. The High
Court dismissed the application by order dated 15.6.2016.
4 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a
doctor by profession and is a renowned neuro surgeon attached to Gangamai
Hospital, Solapur and his wife was also a doctor. He was married to Rashmi
in the year 2010 and they have a son by name Neerav, who was born in April,
2012 and who is mentally challenged. Ms. Rashmi was diabetic and she was
being treated by consulting Dr. Mule. She suffered a heart attack in the
intervening night of 8-9.7.2015 and hence was examined by one doctor
Prabhakaran. Since she was found dead, Dr. Prabhakaran issued a medical
certificate to that effect. The parents of the deceased wife of the
appellant were immediately informed and they came to Solapur on 9.7.2015,
after having satisfied that her death was natural, took a collective
decision along with the appellant not to perform post-mortem. In-laws of
the appellant had sworn an affidavit on 14.7.2015 and 6.4.2016 about the
natural death of the wife of the appellant. This affidavit was required
for cancellation of their tickets from Bangalore to Frankfurt and for
refund. After more than a month in August, 2015, on the basis of an
anonymous letter sent to the Commissioner of Police, Solapur raising
suspicion about the death of the wife of the appellant and that the
appellant had extra-marital affairs, therefore he committed murder of his
wife, appellant was interrogated by the police. He has cooperated with the
police during investigation. The appellant has not committed any offence
as alleged. Therefore, the High Court is not justified in rejecting the
application of the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail.
5 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits
that the wife of the appellant had died in suspicious circumstances. The
appellant took disadvantage of his position as doctor and himself issued
medical certificate about death of his wife and showed that his wife died
natural death. It is further submitted that the police received an
anonymous letter on 28.8.2015 stating that the appellant gave an injection
to his wife and killed her. Without conducting post mortem, the body of
the deceased was cremated in an electric crematorium. Thereafter,
appellant obtained death certificate and took the insurance claim of the
deceased. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the High
Court has rightly rejected the application.
6 It is not disputed that more than a month after the death of Dr.
Rashmi, wife of the deceased the respondent has registered a case on the
basis of an anonymous letter. Immediately after the death of Dr. Rashmi,
her parents were informed by the appellant about her death and they had
come to Solapur. The parents of the deceased have not lodged any complaint
against the accused. Father-in-law of the appellant has sworn to an
affidavit that she was living a happy married life with the appellant and
that she had died a natural death. Therefore, he has no objection for her
funeral without post mortem. It is also necessary to state here that the
appellant has no criminal antecedents.
7 In the circumstances, the High Court was not justified in rejecting
the application of the appellant. We are of the view that it is just and
proper to grant an order of anticipatory bail to the appellant. Therefore,
the order of the High Court in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 841 of
2016 is set aside.
8 In view of the above, we direct that in the event of arrest, the
appellant shall be released on bail on execution of personal bond for
Rupees one lakh with sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
investigating officer. The appellant shall not tamper the witnesses of the
prosecution and shall appear before the investigating officer/court as and
when required.
9 It is needless to clarify that the observations made herein are only
for the purpose of disposing of this appeal and will not influence the
investigation or trial.
10 The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
…………………………………………J.
(J. CHELAMESWAR)
…………………………………………J.
(S. ABDUL NAZEER)
New Delhi
March 09, 2017
