1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1831 OF 2010 (Prakash Palasram Yerme .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 D.R. Bhoyar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri P.V. Bhoyar, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 07TH DECEMBER, 2010. Heard. By way of present application, the applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime No.79/2010 registered with the Police Station, Allipur, Tq. Hinganghat, District Wardha. The applicant is the husband of one Vaishali who was married to applicant on 04th April, 2010. The report lodged against the applicant by Girija Maroti Kursange, sister of the victim. It is stated in the report that in the meeting of settling the marriage itself, the applicant demanded Rs.40,000/- as dowry and that amount was paid by the father of victim Vaishali. After the marriage, she had been to her matrimonial home and whenever she used to come to her parental house, she told her sister and other relatives that she was being constantly ill treated on the demand of motor cycle Hero Honda. Whenever Vaishali used to call her sister, she told to her sister that on the demand of motor cycle and money, she was subjected to ill treatment. On 17.09.2010, a phone call was received by Girija from Vaishali requesting her to give Rs.25,000/- to her, to which Girija informed her that this much amount was not available with her and as such she refused the demand. On the same day, at 04:30 p.m., the applicant along with two other persons visited the house of the complainant at Bori Taluka Malegaon and demanded an amount of Rs.10,000/- which was given to them. On 19.09.2010, a phone 2 call was received informing that Vaishali had consumed poisonous substance. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that a false case is lodged against the applicant. He further submits that the other accused persons i.e. his father, mother and brother are already released on bail and as such the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. Learned APP has strongly opposed the application by filing reply. The investigation is at initial stage. The investigating officer recorded the statements of the witnesses which reveals that the victim Vaishali was subjected to ill treatment on the ground of demand of money for purchase of motor cycle. The postmortem report refers to certain injuries caused to victim Vaishali. Learned APP further submits that the investigation is yet to proceed further and the agency wishes to collect other material. He further submits that at this stage when the investigation is yet to proceed further if the applicant is protected by this Court, the same would result in tampering of the investigation and there is an apprehension that the applicant would not be available for further investigation. Learned APP further submits that in view of the strong material against the applicant, the applicant deserves no protection at the hands of this Court. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that though the incident occurred on 19.09.2010, a report was lodged on 29.09.2010 and as such this long delay creates doubts about the story of the prosecution. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that as per his instructions, the investigation is as good as completed as the statements of the witnesses are already recorded by the investigating agency and no further material is required to be collected by the investigating agency. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. The report is very specifically mentioned that the applicant had made a demand of Rs.40,000/- while settling the marriage and that amount was given to him. The applicant was 3 not happy with this amount and again started demanding money for purchase of motor cycle and the victim was subjected to ill treatment. This fact was intimated to her parents as well as her sister whenever the victim used to come her parental home or on phone. In my view, there is sufficient material against the applicant and at this stage when the investigation is yet to proceed further as the viscera is preserved and sent to CA. The opinion is reserved by the Medical Officer. In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that the applicant does not deserve protection at this stage at the hands of this Court. In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE *rrg.