1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1319 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1319 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1319 OF 2009 1. Mr Sameer Bhavin Davda, 2. Navin Ramji Davda, 3. Mrs Priti Saboo Thakkar, 4. Mrs Geeta Prakash Somiya, 5. Mrs Rita Naresh Gherai, .. Applicants. Vs State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent. Mrs Mallika A. Ingale, for the applicants. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 20.04.2009. DATED : 20.04.2009. DATED : 20.04.2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.P.P for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.422 of 2007 of Dindoshi police station. The said crime has been registered against the applicants for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 498(A) and 304 r/w 34 of the IPC. 3. This court, on 3.4.2009, passed the following order. "Brief facts are that the wife of Sameer N 2 2 2 Davda was operated and she gave birth to a male child after caesarean operation was performed on her on 16.11.2007. Thereafter, she was discharged and taken to her matrimonial house. Her stitches were removed on 21.11.2007. At that time, the doctor who removed stitches had stated that she was quite hale and hearty. However, on 25.11.2007, she suddenly collapsed and died. A complaint was filed by the uncle of the deceased after one month, alleging harassment and cruelty by the in-laws. Initially, a complaint was filed under section 498-A. The applicants were arrested and released on bail. Thereafter, a petition was filed by the uncle of the deceased in this Court, asking the police to incorporate section 304 or section 304-B to the offence which is already registered by the police. The petition, however, was rejected and the Court observed that it is for the police to consider whether the said provisions should be applied or not. However, thereafter, provisions of section 304 of the Indian Penal Code were added to the offence which was already registered. In the meanwhile, application for discharge was also filed by the applicants herein in the Sessions Court. However, the said discharge application was dismissed. 3. Applicants have filed an application for anticipatory bail in this Court since the applicants have an apprehension that they will be arrested in connection with the newly added section viz. Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Application for cancellation of the bail also has been filed by the original complainant. Both these applications are tagged together." . For the reasons recorded in the aforesaid order, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicants. It is pertinent to note that the investigation got over long back, police have also filed the chargesheet and the case is also committed 3 3 3 to the Sessions Court and is now pending for hearing. Hence, the following order. . In the event of arrest, applicant nos 1 to 5 be released on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one or two sureties to make up the said amount subject to the conditions stipulated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Further, the applicants are directed to report to the concerned police station as and when called and they shall also attend hearing of the case before the Sessions Court either personally or through their advocate, as the case may be. It is made clear that if the Court insists and needs presence of the applicants, they shall personally remain present before the Court for hearing of the case. . While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. . The application is disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)