( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3788 OF 2010 Atmaram Baburao Lavhat APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3944 OF 2010 Meenabai alias Pushpabai Ramdas Navale APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT .... Mr. H.D. Deshmukh, advocate for the applicant in both the applications. Mrs. B.R. Khekale, APP for the respondent/State in both the applications. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 15th October, 2010] PER COURT : 1. The applications are for anticipatory bail. 2. Heard learned advocate for the applicants and learned A.P.P. for the State. ( 2 ) 3. Both the applications are being decided together in as much as both the applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with crime No. I-191/2010, registered at Newasa Police Station, for offence, punishable under section 498-A, 304-B, 323, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code. 4. The marriage of deceased Anita was performed on 21-06-2010 with Ravindra Naole, who is the son of applicant Meenabai. The FIR purports to show that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was settled as dowry, but that was not paid at the time of marriage and was being demanded from time to time. About 15 days before the incident, husband of Anita and applicant Atmaram allegedly visited house of the parents of Anita and demanded the dowry amount. Her father borrowed Rs. 10,000/- from his brother-in-law Digambar Parjane and gave it to them. On 26th August, 2010, husband of Anita alone went to house of her parents and demanded remaining amount of dowry. He threatened that if the amount will not be paid, something untoward may happen. The amount could not be paid and, therefore, he left the house of in-laws in angry mood. On 27th August, 2010, applicant Meenabai informed her father that Anita was being shifted to hospital at Ahmednagar because of giddiness and lose motions. Her husband told the father-in- ( 3 ) law that she had become unconscious after sustaining fits.. It was found that she had consumed some poisonous substance and, therefore, died in the same night. 5. The learned advocate for the applicants would submit that both the applicants are being falsely implicated and they were not residing together with deceased Anita and husband. He would further submit that the arrest of the applicants is likely to humiliate them. He points out that applicant Atmaram resides at Panvel and has no peculiar concern with the commission of the alleged crime. The learned A.P.P., however, submits that there is prima facie material to proceed against the applicants and, therefore, their applications deserve dismissal. 6. It appears from the record and the recitals of the FIR that so far as the applicant - Atmaram is concerned, he had only accompanied husband of deceased Anita during visit to the house of the complainant for the purpose of demanding the remaining amount of dowry. There is absolutely no prima facie averment or accusation against him to show that he had participated in the alleged matrimonial cruelty meted out to deceased Anita. He was not admittedly residing together with ( 4 ) deceased Anita and her husband. He was not concerned with their day-today matrimonial life. His mere presence in the company of her husband during solitary visit to house of the complainant, when the husband of Anita put forth the demand for the remaining dowry amount, by itself, cannot be regarded as an act of matrimonial cruelty and, therefore, his arrest is not necessary for the purpose of effective investigation. Still, however, so far as applicant Meenabai is concerned, the FIR itself shows that on 27th August, 2010, she was present in the house, shared by deceased Anita and her husband. There is no substance in the allegation that she was not residing together with them. The FIR shows that she informed her father that Anita was being shifted to the hospital at Ahmednagar due to giddiness and lose motions. The FIR purports to show that the husband and the mother-in-law i.e. applicant Meenabai used to give ill-treatment and at a times, Anita was being beaten up by them by means of fists and kicks and was being abused as well as threatened in order to coerce her to fulfill the unlawful demand for payment of the remaining dowry. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that within a couple of months of the marriage, the young married girl died in the matrimonial house under the unnatural circumstances. In this view of the matter, applicant Meenabai alias Pushpabai is not ( 5 ) entitled to protection under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is discretionary relief and has to be granted in the extraordinary circumstances. 7. In the result, criminal application No. 3788/2010 is allowed and the ad-interim order dated.27th September, 2010 is confirmed. The ad-interim bail order will remain in force till filing of the chargesheet or final report, as the case may be. The criminal application No. 3944/2010, filed by applicant Meenabai alias Pushpabai, is, however, dismissed and the ad-interim relief, if any, granted to applicant Meenabai stands vacated. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3788-3944-10