1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1579 OF 2010 (Kishor Manikrao Landage .v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri R.H. Rawlani, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.M. Bhagde, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 13TH OCTOBER, 2010. Heard. The applicant is the husband of deceased Vrushali. In the report lodged with the Police Station, Benoda, the father of deceased Vrushali states that for the initial period of one and half months, the things were going on well. Thereafter the applicant and the other in-laws started constant demand of money. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the medical evidence i.e. Postmortem Report shows that the deceased Vrushali was suffering from tuberculosis. He further submits that in inquest panchnama, there is no visible injury is found. He submits that the anticipatory bail is granted to the other accused namely, the mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased. He, therefore, submits that on the ground of parity the present applicant is also entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. The reply is filed by the State. The material collected by the investigating agency is also placed before me. Perusal of the statement reveals that there was constant demand of money from the applicant. Not only this, but the statement also reveals that the father of the deceased has initially expressed his inability to give the money. Thereafter, the father of the deceased sold the cotton produced and handed over an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the applicant. It is also clear from the record that while considering the application of the other accused, namely, the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased, it was considered that these 2 applicants are residing at village Shirkhed; whereas the deceased was residing at village Karajgaon. In view of this position, the applicant cannot claim parity. There is strong prima facie material available against the applicant. This is not a fit case for granting any protection to the applicant. In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE *rrg.