1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No.834 of 2010 [Sau. Shantabai Liladhar Surkar and others Vs. State of Mah.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.R. Sambre, Adv., for the applicants. Mr. V.A. Thakare, APP for respondent. Mr. J.B. Kasat, Adv., for assisting the prosecution. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 17th June, 2010. 1. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail. 2. The applicants have been named as accused in Crime No. 95/10 dated 7 th May, 2010 registered with Police Station, Nandanwan, Nagpur, for offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. It is alleged that the applicants- accused drove deceased Shilpa to commit suicide by ill-treating and torturing her physically and mentally to meet their monetary demands. 4. The application is opposed by the prosecution as well as by the complainant who has filed application for assisting the 2 prosecution. 5. Heard learned Adv. Mr. A.R. Sambre for the applicants, learned APP Mr. V.A. Thakare for the respondent and learned Adv. Mr. J.B. Kasat for the complainant. Perused the Case Diary. 6. Record shows that it is a case of suicidal death. 7. The dead body of the deceased was subjected to Post-morterm Examination twice. During both examinations, death due to strangulation is confirmed. 8. Statements of the witnesses disclose that the accused persons demanded money initially for a two-wheeler which was provided. Thereafter the accused persons insisted for transfer of the plot in the name of the husband of deceased, namely Pravin. 9. Statements of witnesses further disclose that the complainant’s son-in-law – Pravin and his brothers used to pester and torture the deceased. 10. Learned Adv., for the applicants has strenuously pursued the bail application contending that :- [a] The applicant no.1 is an old lady of 65 years of age and that no specific imputations are seen against her. 3 [b] In so far applicant no.3 – Anita is concerned, it is alleged against her that she has instigated accused nos. 2 and 4 to torture the deceased. However, no specific act of ill-treatment is attributed to the applicant no.3. [c] In so far as Applicant Nos. 2 and 4 are concerned, it is stated that they are serving as teachers, and arrest will create an obstacle in their service career. [d] The allegations are too general and do not constitute offence. 11. Apart the above grounds, learned Adv., for the applicants has tendered a detailed synopsis and relied upon the reported judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Savitri Devi Vs. Ramesh Chand & ors. (II [2003] CCR 43), urging that a bare word “harassment” does not suffice, and if it is shown that the persons named in the First Information Report are living away from the family, they may not be involved in the offence. 12. Upon scrutiny of case diary, it reveals that the case of Applicant No.1 – Shantabai Liladhar Surkar would stand on a different footing. The case of Applicant No.3 – Anita Pradeep Surkar would rest on a slightly 4 different footing, she being a woman as well as beyond allegations of some instigation, no specific imputation of harassment is attributed to her. 13. Considering the material on record, it cannot be said that the accused Nos. 2 and 4 are innocent persons and are deliberately or falsely involved. 14. In the result, this Court is of considered view that what prima facie appears is that the applicant No.2 – Pradeep Liladhar Surkar and Applicant No.4 – Sanjay Liladhar Surkar do not escape from the allegations of having harassed and ill-treated the deceased. 15. Prima facie, the allegations against Applicant No.1 – Smt. Shantabai Liladhar Surkar and Applicant No.3 – Smt. Anita Pradeep Surkar are different from those made against Applicant Nos. 1 and 4, and their involvement is not as grave as that of Applicant Nos. 2 and 4. 16. In the circumstances, application partly succeeds. 17. Applicant No.1 – Smt. Shantabai Liladhar Surkar and Applicant No.3 – Anita Pradeep Surkar be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 95/2010 registered at Police Station, Nandanvan, Nagpur, for offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian 5 Penal Code, on their furnishing a Personal Bond and a Solvent Surety in a sum of Rs.10,000-00 [rupees ten thousand only] each. Both the above named two applicants shall attend the Police Station and co-operate the Police in investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer. 18. Application of Applicant No.2 – Pradeep Liladhar Surkar and Applicant No.4 – Sanjay Liladhar Surkar is hereby rejected. Judge |Hedau|