{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.143 OF 2010 1. Gangaram Munjaji Pimpre Age-80 years, Occ-Nil 2. Gayabai Gamgaram Pimpre Age-75 years, Occ-Nil 3. Arun Gangaram Pimpre, Age-40 years, Occ-Agri 4. Prakash Gangaram Pimpre Age-30 years Occ-Agri All R/o Koparwadi, Tq-Kalamnuri Dist-Hingoli APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.Joydeep Chatterjee, Advocate for applicants Mr.B.J.Sonawane, APP for the respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 19th January 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicants have prayed {2} to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.117/2009 registered with Akhada Balapur police station of Hingoli district for an offence punishable u/s 498- A, 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by the submissions of learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation carried out till today. 3. At the outset, it is necessary to consider the relations of the applicants with the victim. Applicant No.1 is the father in law, No.2 is mother in law and No.3 and 4 are brothers in law of the victim. It is alleged in the complaint that the victim got married with one Raosaheb, resident of Koparwadi in the month of May 2007. There are sweeping allegations against the applicants and husband of the victim, who is not an applicant to this application. It is alleged that there was demand of Rs.1,25,000/- from the parents of the victim. It is also alleged that the husband of the applicant had demanded Rs.4 to 5 lacs from the victim and on that count there was harassment of the victim Daivshila. The alleged incident occurred in the afternoon of 28th December 2009. The victim had consumed poison and on the way to the hospital she died. Hence the complaint against the present applicants and the husband of the victim. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the {3} applicants that though the applicants reside in the same village, yet not under the same roof where the victim and her husband used to reside. There are sweeping allegations against the applicants that they used to harass the victim and due to said harassment, she has committed suicide. In the premise, it is urged to release the applicants on anticipatory bail. 5. Application is opposed by learned APP on the ground that investigation is in progress and if the applicants are released on anticipatory bail they may tamper the prosecution witnesses. 6. Considering the rival submissions it appears that though the incident occurred at village Koparwadi, yet statement of only one neighbour appears to be recorded. The statement of the neighbour, recorded during the investigation, does not disclose any direct evidence in respect of harassment of the victim at the hands of the applicants, which has resulted into her committing suicide. Rest of the statements are of the witnesses, who are relatives of the victim and residents of village Jam, which is at a distance from the place of residence of the victim. There is no direct evidence against the applicants, but only sweeping allegation against them. Though the death is occurred within a span of 7 years from the date of marriage of the victim at her matrimonial house, yet considering the above aspects case is made out to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. {4} 7. In the result, application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with CR No.117/2009 registered with Akhada Balapur police station, they be released on bail on their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each and on executing PR bonds in the like amount. Applicants are directed to cooperate with the investigating agency and not to tamper the prosecution witnesses. This protection is granted till filing of the charge sheet. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln143-10