1 ABA-311.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.311 OF 2011 {For Anticipatory Bail} Munshilal Kalicharan Verma & Ors. .... Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Shri Ashok M. Saraogi for the Applicant. Ms Alpa T. Javeri, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: APRIL 21, 2011 P.C: Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail by parents in-law, brother in-law and the brother in-law's wife of the victim, who committed suicide by hanging herself. Curiously, there is no allegation against the husband. In fact, the husband's statement has been recorded in the course of the investigation which shows that he supports his wife's allegation of harassment by the present applicants. The learned counsel for the 2 ABA-311.11 applicants submitted that this was possibly because of a dispute about the house. He submitted that because of this dispute, allegations had been made not only against the present applicants but against another brother in-law and his wife who were already separated from the family and who have been already admitted to anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. All the same, as rightly pointed out by the learned APP, there are statements of two neighbours that show that applicant No.2 Pramila and applicant No.4 Pratibha had a quarrel with the victim prior to the incident and the neighbours believe that because of the harassment at the hands of these two applicants the victim might have committed suicide. In view of this, there is no question of applicant Nos.2 and 4 being admitted to bail. 3. However, as far as applicant No.1- Munshilal and applicant No.3-Pravin are concerned, though they stay in the same house, there does not appear to be any proximate instigation on the part of applicant Nos.1 and 3 which may have led to the victim's suicide. Therefore, applicant Nos.1 and 3, in the event of their arrest in C.R. No.I-125 of 2011 of Mahatma Phule Police Station, Kalyan, District 3 ABA-311.11 Thane be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.25,000/- per person on the condition that applicant Nos.1 and 3 shall report at the police station concerned on 29-4-2011 at 11:00 a.m. for interrogation and thereafter as and when required by the I.O.. The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and they shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the trial Court. 4. In so far as applicant Nos.2 and 4 are concerned, their application is rejected. However, they are granted time till 25-4-2011 to surrender before the learned Magistrate before whom the I.O. may seek appropriate relief. The learned Magistrate to decide as to whether applicant Nos.2 and 4 are required to be taken in custody or not or to bail them out when they appear before him, as the case may be. 4 ABA-311.11 5. This order, in so far as it relates to applicant Nos.1 and 3, shall remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if charge-sheeted, the applicants may furnish fresh bond before the trial Court in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court, dated 2-12-2010, delivered in Criminal Appeal No.2271 of 2010, arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.7615 of 2009 {Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.}. 6. The application accordingly stands disposed of. 7. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)