* 1 * ABA.74.2011 4.7.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 74 OF 2011 Mangal Dalvi .... Applicant V/S. Yogesh Vise and Others .... Respondents * * * * Ms. Bhakti Deshmukh i/by. Ms. Vishranti Navale, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Sandesh D. Patil, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for State-respondent no.4. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 4th July, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This is an application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents by the District Court, Thane vide its order dated 9th December, 2010. The application for cancellation is made on merits, as well as, on the allegation of abuse of the order. 2. One Dipali, the deceased was married to respondent no.1. Respondents no.2 and 3 are the parents of respondent no.1. The marriage of Dipali and respondent no.1 was a love marriage. It had taken place on 17th May, 2010. The record shows that initially the father of Dipali, the complainant and his family were opposed to the * 2 * ABA.74.2011 4.7.2011 marriage. As per the complaint on 12th October, 2010 the brother of respondent no.1 and the brother’s wife brought Dipali to her parent’s place and left her there with a promise to take her within 8-10 days. However, after expiry of 8 days, no member of the family of respondent no.1 came to fetch her. It is alleged that on 3rd October, 2010 at about 10.00 a.m. respondent no.1 visited the residence of the applicant and demanded dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. With the demand, he allegedly threatened Dipali that she would not be taken back by him into the house and also that she would be killed. He allegedly gave some threat of dire consequences to the applicant. Dipali, committed suicide on the same day by hanging herself. 3. The Sessions Court in its order while granting anticipatory bail has observed that the incident of suicide had taken place at the house of the parents of the deceased. Nothing was to be recovered from the respondents. There were no criminal antecedents attached to the respondents. The investigation is almost complete. Almost all the witnesses being relatives of the deceased, there was no question of tampering with the prosecution witnesses. The Sessions Court also noted that considering the permanent residence of the respondents, there was no likelihood of they absconding. It is also not alleged by the applicant that the respondents are not available for trial. All the above * 3 * ABA.74.2011 4.7.2011 observations are borne out by the record. 4. The applicant, however, alleges abuse of the liberty by the respondents. He alleges that on 10th December, 2010 at about 1.30 a.m. respondent no.2 i.e. the father-in-law alongwith the other respondents came to his residence and started throwing stones on the house. Respondent no.2 was alleged carrying sword in his hands and had threatened to finish the applicant. Surprisingly, the applicant has not lodged any complaint with the police about the incident. He merely wrote a letter to the Sub-Divisional office, Shahapur Division, Shahapur. Therefore, the incident cannot be believed on the basis of the bare word of the applicant. No case is made out by the applicant for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents. Hence, the application is rejected. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]