{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3781 OF 2009 1. Babasaheb s/o Bhanudas Jige Age-27 years, Occ-Agri 2. Devidas s/o Bhanudas Jige Age-36 years, Occ-Agri 3. Kailas s/o Bhanudas Jige Age-34 years, occ-Agri All R/o Math-Pimpalgaon Tq-Ambad, Dist-Jalna APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Ambad Dist-Jalna RESPONDENT ....... Mr.S.J.Salunke, Advocate for applicants Mrs.Yogita M.Kshirsagar, APP for the State Mr.Rahul Awasrmal, Advocate for original complainant ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 26 th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicants have prayed {2} to release them on bail in connection with CR No.170/2009 registered with Ambad police station for an offence punishable u/s 304-B and 498-A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of the learned APP, who is assisted by Mr.Rahul Awasarmal, learned counsel for original complainant. 3. It appears that marriage of the deceased Rekha was performed with applicant No.1 on 6 th May 2009 and the alleged incident took place on 27,09.2009. It is alleged that deceased Rekha had consumed poison allegedly due to harassment for demand of dowry. It is alleged that the death is homicidal death, which has occurred within 7 years of marriage and hence offence u/s 304-B r/w 498-A r/w 34 of the IPC is registered against the applicants. 4. During the course of submissions, It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants No.2 and 3 do not reside with the applicant No.1. It is contended that the compliant is signed by the complainant, however the format of the FIR shows that the complainant has put thumb impression at the place provided for signature. According to learned counsel for applicants this fact creates doubt as to whether in fact the person who has lodged the compliant has made the grievance about the allegations stated in the compliant and to strengthen this doubt he {3} has drawn my attention towards the affidavit filed by the complainant in support of an application to seek permission to assist the APP. This affidavit also bears thumb impression and not signature of the deponent. Apart from the fact that whether the complainant is literate or illiterate, my attention is drawn towards the disclosure of facts in the affidavit it is contended that the deceased was suspecting that her husband, applicant No.1 has illicit relations with some lady and on that count there used to be quarrels between them, which has ultimately resulted into consuming poison by deceased Rekha. If it is so, then it cannot be said that this is a case of harassment of deceased on demand of dowry. 5. Learned APP has contended that the statements of the neighbors are also recorded during the investigation, which indicate that all the applicants used to reside together and used to harass the deceased on account of dowry. Submissions of learned counsel appearing for original complainant cannot travel beyond the facts disclosed in the affidavit. 6. Considering these submissions and the facts, which are disclosed in the compliant and the affidavit filed by the complainant are contrary to each other. If the complainant himself is stating something in the complaint filed by him before the police station and filing affidavit contrary before this Court, then it can be inferred that the complainant is hiding something from this {4} Court. If is it so, then as far as applicants No.2 and 3 are concerned, they cannot be prima facie linked with the alleged offence. However, so far as applicant No.1 is concerned his case cannot be treated at par with applicants No.2 and 3. 7. In the result, application is partly allowed. Criminal Application, in so far as it relates to applicant No.1, stands rejected. Application of applicants No.2 and 3 is allowed. Applicants No.2 and 3 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. The applicants No.2 and 3 not to contact or tamper with the prosecution witnesses after their release on bail. Application stands disposed of in terms of above order. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3781-09