1 ABA-923.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE  CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.923 OF 2011 {For Anticipatory Bail} Padmabai Ashok Sangle .... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .... Respondent S/Shri Santosh Jagtap with Shashikant Karanjkar for the Applicant. Ms Rajeshree Gadhavi, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 22, 2011 P.C: 1. This is an application by a prospective mother-in-law for anticipatory bail because her would have been daughter-in-law complained that a sum of `4,00,000/- has been taken for marriage expenses and ornaments and then the marriage was broken. The learned APP, on instructions from the I.O., states that there is nothing which has transpired in the investigation to show that any amount of `1,00,000/- was paid by cheque. However, she states that according to the I.O. a sum of `4,00,000/- has to be recovered. She also states that ornaments worth 2 ABA-923.11 `1,00,000/- which were purchased are with the complainant herself. There is no evidence about payment of `3,00,000/-. Rupees five lakhs were the agreed expenditure of the marriage and it was not the amount which was shown to have been paid even in the FIR. Therefore, it is not clear as to why the applicant's being in custody is necessary for the purpose of further investigation. The application is therefore allowed. 2. In the event of the applicant s arrest in C.R. No.I-519 of 2011 of Mahatma Phule Police Station, Kalyan, District Thane, the applicant be released on bail on her furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of `50,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to `50,000/- on the condition that the applicant shall report at the police station concerned on 29-11-2011 at 11:00 a.m. for interrogation and thereafter as and when required by the I.O.. The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and she shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the 3 ABA-923.11 trial Court. 3. This order shall remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if charge-sheeted, the applicant may furnish fresh bonds before the trial Court in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in AIR 2011 SC 312. 4. The application accordingly stands disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)