Page 1

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

1

Page 2

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

2

Page 3

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

3

Page 4

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

4

Page 5

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

5

Page 6

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

6

Page 7

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  

7