[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2658 OF 2008 Sanjay Parmeshwar Godse and Ors. ..Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.Sudhir Halli Advocate for Applicants Mr.K.V.Saste APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 28, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 28, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 28, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in CR No.92 of 2008 of Haveli Police Station, Pune. The said case is under sections 498-A, 313 and 409 of IPC. 3. The FIR has been lodged by Jyoti. Applicant no.1 is husband of Jyoti. Applicant no.2 is father in law of Jyoti and applicant no.3 is mother in law of Jyoti. 4. Jyoti has stated about the demand by the applicants of Rs.50,000/-. As the demand was not [-2-] met, all the applicants used to abuse her, beat her and harass her. It is further stated that on one day the gas in the kitchen was kept on and thereafter she was sent to the kitchen to make tea so that there would be blast of the gas and she would die in the incident. 5. The complainant has further stated that when she was three months pregnant. Applicants made her undergo sex determination test. As it was found that the foetus was a female foetus, the applicants wanted her to abort the same, however, the complainant was not willing, yet the abortion was caused. 6. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the statement of the complainant cannot be relied upon as the medical report dated 20.11.2004 shows that there was possibility of incomplete abortion. He submitted that this was the reason for the abortion and not the fact that there was a female foetus. 7. The complainant has specifically stated that she was about 3 months pregnant when her mother in law made her eat some food stuff and thereafter throughout the day there was continuous pains in [-3-] her stomach and in the night at about 8.30 p.m. miscarriage was caused. Thereafter, the complainant and the foetus were taken to the hospital. The learned APP has pointed out that in fact, the applicant no.3 made the complainant eat some food stuff, due to which, the abortion was caused at home and thereafter the complainant and the foetus were taken to the hospital and certificate relied upon by the applicants was given after the complainant was examined in the said hospital after the abortion. In addition to this, the complainant has stated that applicant no.3 was insisting that the complainant should have sexual intercourse with the applicant no.2 who is her father in law. 7. In my opinion, the material on record is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the applicant. The Apex Court in the decision of Directorate of Enforcement Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao Directorate of Enforcement Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao Directorate of Enforcement Vs.P.V.Prabhakar Rao reported in 1997, SCC (Cri.) 978 reported in 1997, SCC (Cri.) 978 reported in 1997, SCC (Cri.) 978 has observed that when the material gathered by the prosecution is such as to point out an accusing finger towards the accused, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, application is rejected. [-4-] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]