1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 197 OF 2009 1. Amar Haridas Burla 2. Haridas Ramswami Burla 3. Sou. Pramila Haridas Burla 4. Sou. Jayasudha Vankatesh Shriram 5. Sharad Nagesh Guram 6. Ambadas Haridas Burla ......Applicants. V/s State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent. ------ Mr. B. G. Vaidya i/b Mr. K.K. Pandare for the applicants. Mr. S.R. Shinde, APP for the State. ------ CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 19th January, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicants against whom the offence punishable under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is registered at Jail Road Police Station in connection with C.R. No.100 of 2008. 2 3. Prosecution case is that the applicant No.1 had promised to marry the deceased Vidisha and, thereafter, in fact, they got married and went to Hyderabad at the applicant Nos.1's residence. However, applicant No. 2 and his wife and daughter did not permit the deceased to stay with them on the ground that she was Nav-buddha. The deceased made an attempt to commit suicide by hanging herself. However, she was rescued by her father and she was admitted in the hospital. After 17 days, she died and the doctor has given a certificate that the cause of death is by hanging. Charge-sheet has already been filed. 4. Applicants were initially granted bail for the offence punishable under section 420. Section 306 has been subsequently added after the death of the complainant's daughter Vidisha. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submitted that the provisions of the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not attracted. No such complaint has been filed even by the complainant. However, the Sessions Court on its own accord, has stated in its order that prima facie provisions of section 18 of the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [For short "the said Act"] are attracted. 6. I have perused the order passed by the Sessions Court 3 and the first complaint which was lodged by the complainant. There are no allegations in the said complaint which could be covered under section 3 of the said Act. Prima facie, therefore, it appears that the provisions of the said Act are not attracted. No such allegation has been made even by the complainant in his complaint. No submission was made by the prosecution before the Sessions Court about the applicability of the said Act. In my view, therefore, prima facie, provisions of section 18 of the said Act are not attracted. This Court in the case of "Vhatkar" has held that if the FIR prima facie does not disclose the commission of the offence under the said Act, the application for anticipatory bail is maintainable. Since the charge- sheet has already been filed, custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary. Applicant No.3 is a mother of applicant No.1. Applicant No.2 is a father of applicant No.1. Applicant No.4 is a married sister of Applicant No.1. Applicant No.5 is a cousin and applicant Nos. 6 is a younger brother of applicant No.1. Vague allegations have been made against these applicants. Applicants are, therefore, entitled to get the anticipatory bail 7. Applicants, in the event of their arrest in connection with C.R. No.100 of 2008 which is registered against them at Jail Road Police Station for the offence punishable under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, shall be released on bail in the sum of Rs 5000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount. Applicant Nos. 1 and 4 2, however, shall report to the Jail Road Police Station for a period of three days from 27/1/2009. Applicants, thereafter, shall report the said Police Station as and when called. 8. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)