1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2300 OF 2009 Appasaheb Nivrutti Patil and anr ..Applicants -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Shri.Chaitanya Pendse i/b Smt Jyoti Chavan, for the applicants.. Shri V.B.Konde Deshmukh, APP for the state. CORAM: R. G. KETKAR J (Vacation Judge) DATED: 18th May, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP for the State. By this application, the applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in CR No.ll2 of 2 2009 of Nehru Nagar Police Station, Kurla. The crime is registered against applicants and others, for offence u/s 498-A, 304-B read with 34 Indian Penal Code. 2. The deceased Nalini got married to Ramchandra Appasaheb Patil, the son of the applicants on March 5, 2009 in Sangli District. After the marriage, deceased with her husband, her mother in law and brothers of Ramchandra, came to Mumbai on March l5, 2009. On March 27, 2009, mother in law ie applicant No.2 herein left for Sangli. On April 11, 2009, the deceased and her husband went to Sangli and came back to Mumbai on April l2, 2009. On April l3, 2009, the deceased Nalini committed suicide. 3. Mr.Pendse, learned counsel for the applicants contended that the allegations made against the applicants in the F.I.R, are of general nature. No overact is alleged against them. There is also no question of applicants abetting the commission of offence. He has strongly relied upon the order dated May 8, 2009, passed by this Court in Criminal Application No.2l56 of 3 2009. The said application was filed by Sambhaji Appasaheb Patil & Sunil Appasaheb Patil, the brothers of Ramchandra. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel and also on going through the FIR, and considering the role attributed to the applicants, prima facie I find that the allegations are made in the FIR that the deceased Nalini disclosed that her in laws and the husband were not interested in keeping good relations with her. In the complaint, allegations are made that due to non-fulfilment of demand of gold ornaments the deceased Nalini was harassed by the applicants and they had instigated the husband to harass Nalini. In the supplementary statement dated April l8, 2009, the complainant made further allegations about demand of Washing Machine and the applicants and husband of Nalini suspected about the character of deceased Nalini. 5. Thus, in so far as the present applicants are concerned, their case can not be compared with Sambhaji Appasaheb and Sunil Appasaheb Patil. In my opinion, there is no question of parity and consequently reliance 4 placed by learned counsel for the applicant on the order dated May 8, 2009, in Criminal Application No.2l56 of 2009 is misconceived. 6. Having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that this is not fit case for enlarging the applicants on anticipatory bail. The application accordingly stands rejected. The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding present application for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Mr.Pendse, learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to surrender to the police till May 2l, 2009. The applicants are granted time to surrender till May 2l, 2009. (R.G. KETKAR, J)