1 cri3803.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3803 OF 2011 1. Rukminibai Sriram Betkar 2. Satyabhamabai W/o Rajesh Shinde 3. Ramchandra S/o Dnyandev Jadhav ..Applicants -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and another ..Respondents ..... Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for applicants Smt. R.K. Ladda, APP for respondents ..... (CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE,J.) DATE : 29th September, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Perused the investigation papers which were made available for inspection purpose and heard the learned counsel for the respective parties finally. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant nos.1 to 3 seeking anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest, in connection with C.R. No. 47/2011, registered at Mudkhed Police Station, Tq. Mudkhed, Dist. Nanded, for the offences punishable under 2 cri3803.11 Sections 498A, 306, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that the crime has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by complainant namely; Gangadhar Deorao Kavale i.e. the father of the victim namely; Savita on 19th May, 2011. It is alleged that deceased victim married with Sopan in May, 2010 i.e. on 24th May, 2010 and there are allegations in respect of unlawful demand of Rs. 50,000/- for installation of shop from the victim to be brought by her from her parental house and due to non fulfillment of unlawful demands, she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the applicants and other co- accused persons. 4. In the said context, it is alleged that the complaint was lodged with Mahila Takrar Nivaran Samittee, Nanded on 3rd March, 2011. It is also alleged that consequently, the victim Savita committed suicide on 19.05.2011 by jumping in to well due to the said ill-treatment meted out to her by the applicants and other co-accused. 3 cri3803.11 5. Admittedly, the applicant nos. 1 and 2 are the married sisters-in-law of the victim Savita and residing at Walki and Rohipimpalgaon respectively, whereas, the applicant no.3 is the cousin of Sopan- husband of victim Savita. However, allegations made against applicant nos. 1 and 2 appear to be in the nature of general/omnibus allegations in respect of giving ill treatment to the victim, whereas the name of applicant no.3 has not been reflected in the F.I.R. but it is disclosed in the charge sheet. Apparently, there are no allegations against the said applicant no.3 in the F.I.R. 6. The applicants were granted interim protection by order dated 5th September, 2011 and they were directed to give attendance before the concerned Investigator. It is submitted that although the applicants gave attendance as per the directions, they did not co- operate in the investigation. In the said context, the learned counsel for the applicants pointed out from the Diaries that the applicants gave attendance as per the directions of this Court. However, it is pertinent to note that the grievance made by the learned A.P.P. 4 cri3803.11 that they did not co-operate in the investigation has not been reflected in the said diaries of attendance. Hence, it is apparent that there is no substance in the grievance made by the respondents. 7. Apart from that considering the accusations made against the applicants and nature and gravity thereof and further the charge sheet has been filed, there is no necessity of custodial interrogation of the applicants and therefore, the interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicants deserves to be made absolute, but on certain conditions. 8. In the result, the present application is allowed and the interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicants on 5th September, 2011 stands confirmed, on the following conditions :- (i) The applicant nos. 1 to 3 shall attend the dates of the Sessions Case before the learned Sessions Court regularly and punctually and the applicant nos. 1 to 3 5 cri3803.11 shall co-operate with the said Court for earlier disposal of the case. (ii) The applicants shall not influence upon the witnesses and/or tamper with the evidence, in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly. 7. However, it is made clear that the above observations are prima facie in nature, and same shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. 8. The present Criminal Application stands disposed of finally. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE ga s/cri3803.11