1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 2960 of 2009 Priya v. State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr D. Dharaskar, Adv for applicant Mr A. Parihar, APP for State Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 13th August 2009 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 135/09 registered with Police Station, Frezerpura, Amravati under Sections 406, 426, 496 and 497 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Applicant was granted interim protection vide order dated 30th July 2009. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is cooperating with Investigating agency. Learned APP does not dispute this statement. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that since applicant could not deliver a child, complainant-her husband Umesh wants to get rid of her. He is also suspicious about 2 chastity of applicant and always harasses her on one count or the other. He contends that golden ornaments are kept in the bank locker by complainant himself and the locker is in the name of complainant Umesh. It is falsely alleged that applicant is living with one Mihir Bhat at Bharuch and while leaving the house of complainant, she carried with her gold ornaments. 4. Learned APP while opposing the bail application, contends that gold ornaments worth Rs. 60,000/- have been recovered from another accused viz. Mihir Bhat and gold ornaments and valuables worth Rs. 1,40,000/- are still to be recovered and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is essential. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed on record copy of legal notice served by complainant on applicant and he submits that appropriate reply to the notice is being given. On perusal of the notice, I find that parties have married since 14 years and the matrimonial dispute has arisen between them. It also appears that applicant has also lodged complaint against her husband with Police Station, Gittikhadan, Nagpur. In these circumstances, possibility of implicating each other for exaggerated charges cannot be prima facie ruled out. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6. Order dated 30th July 2009 granting interim 3 anticipatory bail to the applicant is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions as are stipulated therein. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Hamdast granted. Judge. Hsj