..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1714 OF 2008 1. Bhimrao Narayan Shinde, & 2. Parmeshwar Haridas Lamkane. ..Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.Jaydeep Mane, Adv. for the applicants. Mr.P.M.Jadhav, Adv. for orig.complainant. Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 16th July, 2008. DATED : 16th July, 2008. DATED : 16th July, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant, the learned Advocate for the original complainant and the learned APP for the State. The learned Advocate for the applicants stated that he is not pressing this application for anticipatory bail in respect of applicant No.1. In view of this statement, this application is being considered only in respect of applicant No.2. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.126 of 2008 of Pandharpur Taluka police station. The said case is mainly under Section 306 of IPC. ..(2).. 3. It is the case of the complainant that one Digambar Kadam teased her. Hence her husband and brother-in-law questioned Digambar Kadam about the said act. On account of this, Digambar Kadam and some eight persons including the applicant assaulted her, her husband and her brother-in-law. FIR came to be lodged by both sides in respect of the said incident. Her husband was admitted in the hospital and accused Ganesh Shinde was also admitted in the hospital. Ganesh Shinde and the husband of the complainant were on adjoining beds in the hospital. It is further the case of the complainant that the applicant along with four other accused persons had came to the hospital to met Ganesh Shinde. At that time, they gave threats to her husband and brother-in-law that they would not leave them alive if they come to the village. Thereafter on 29.4.2008 her husband consumed some poisonous substance and on 30.4.2008 her husband died. It is the case of the complainant that on account of the threats given by the applicant and others, her husband consumed poisonous substance and committed suicide. 4. Even though the husband of the complainant had expired on 30.4.2008, the complaint in the present case is lodged on 5.5.2008. There is five days delay ..(3).. in lodging the complaint. This delay raises grave doubt in the mind regarding the veracity of the complainant. No explanation for the delay has been given by the complainant. The post-mortem notes do not show the cause of death. However the viscera has been sent for analysis. The said report is awaited. Looking to the above facts, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to applicant No.2. 5. In the event of arrest, applicant No.2 - Parmeshwar Haridas Lamkane to be released on bail, on his furnishing P.B. in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and one surety to make up the said amount. The applicant No.2 shall not enter village Pirachi Kuroli. The applicant No.2 shall inform the investigating officer the address at which he will reside during the period that he is on bail. The applicant No.2 shall report to the nearest police station to that address once in a week, till charge-sheet is filed. 6. This order of anticipatory bail shall remain in force till the filing of the charge-sheet. On filing charge-sheet, it would be open for the applicant No.2 to apply for regular bail before the regular Court. 7. The I.O. shall give 48 hours advance notice to ..(4).. the applicant No.2 before filing of the charge-sheet. Needless to mention that before the application for bail is moved by the applicant, the prosecuting agency will be given 48 hours advance intimation as to the date on which the application is proposed to be moved. 8. The regular Court shall be free to consider the question of grant of regular bail on its own merits. 9. In the result, Criminal Application is disposed of in terms of this order. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)