IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1648/2009. ( Dr.Ajay Janardhan Sawarkar and another ..vs.. State of Mah. ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 7 th May, 2009 Heard Shri Gandhi, Advocate, for the applicants and Shri Sonare, APP, for respondent State. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. Interim order was passed on 23rd April, 2009. The only question is whether that order needs to be confirmed. Learned APP while opposing the bail application has pressed into service the statements of Ankita and Anushka, who are the daughters of the applicant no.1. The statements are perused. No doubt, their statements show that before the incident, the deceased was under some tension. However, taking over all view of the matter, it is difficult to say that the case of harassment and ill-treatment as required under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. is made out. It can not be forgotten that the marriage between the deceased and applicant no.1 had taken place about 20 years back. It is also pointed out on affidavit and by filing copies of the relevant documents that deceased was nominated in various Government records to receive the benefit in case of some mishap with the applicant no.1. In these circumstances, the interim order needs to be confirmed. The same is confirmed as follows. In the event of arrest of the applicants for the offence under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C., in Crime No. 63/2009 registered by P.S.Ganeshpeth, Nagpur, each of them be released on bail on furnishing surety and P.R.Bond of Rs. 15,000/-, subject to conditions that they shall report P.S.Gandeshpeth as and when directed by the investigating officer for the purposes of investigation and shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence. However, liberty to the respondent to move for cancellation of anticipatory bail, if the circumstances so warrant, later on. It is made clear that the above observations are in prima facie view of the matter and therefore, they shall not influence the learned trial Judge while deciding anything on merits. Application disposed of. JUDGE Rvjalit