( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3910 OF 2010 Mohan Keru Kathmore & another APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another RESPONDENTS .... Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, advocate for the applicants. Mrs. B.R. Khekale, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 5th October, 2010] PER COURT : 1. The application is filed for directions under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The applicants are in-laws of deceased Gayatri. It appears that from the recitals of the FIR that deceased Gayatri was married about a couple of years prior to her death. The FIR purports to show that after about six (6) months, the husband and the deceased started ill-treatment to deceased Gayatri. They demanded Rs. one (1) lac for the purpose of commencing business in a shop. The informant attempted to convince the applicants and husband of Gayatri ( 2 ) that his financial condition was rather precarious and, therefore, he was unable to pay the amount. He urged them not to trouble her. At the relevant time, Gayatri was pregnant. She delivered a female child after she was brought to house of her father. It is alleged that the husband and the applicants were dis-satisfied because she delivered a female child. She again narrated to her father about the ill-treatment given by them, when she was left in the house on 28th August, 2010. The FIR purports to show that her father was informed that Gayatri had fallen in the matrimonial home while working. He went to Noble Hospital where she was admitted. He noticed that she was no more. He also noticed that deceased Gayatri was having injuries on the chin and blood was oozing from her ear. There were stains of blood on her clothes. He, therefore, suspected that she was done to death by the applicants and husband of Gayatri. He thereafter lodged FIR. 3. The learned advocate for the applicants would submit that the allegations in the FIR are ill-motivated and the applicants are likely to be humiliated due to the arrest. It is argued that considering age of the applicants and the fact that the incident is not seen by any independent witness, they deserve liberty. I find it difficult to countenance the ( 3 ) contention of the learned advocate. It prima facie appears that deceased Gayatri was assaulted by means of sharp edged weapon. The incident occurred in the matrimonial home which is commonly shared by the applicants and husband of Gayatri. Needless to say, there is prima facie evidence to show that the applicants might be present in the house when the incident occurred. How she was injured is the question which can be resolved after due interrogation of the applicants and husband of Gayatri. It is pointed out that the husband has been arrested. Still, however, the present case is not one which falls within ambit of section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in as much as the arrest of the applicant cannot be regarded as without any reason, nor it can be said that the applicants are likely to be harassed or humiliated due to the arrest. The applicant No. 1 is a retired police officer. In this view of the matter, the application is dismissed. At this juncture, learned advocate for the applicant seeks interim protection to the applicant No. 2 till Friday i.e. 8th October, 2010. The request is rejected. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3910-10 ( 4 )