1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 3282/2009 [SEWAKRAM KUMBHALKAR AND ANOTHER .....VS..... THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ] ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 25, 2009. Heard Shri Wathore, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Sonak, learned APP, for respondent State. By the present application, the applicants/ accused who are apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 3015/2009 registered with Gadchiroli Police Station for commission of office under Section 417 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, upon first information report lodged on 12.05.2009 by one Waman Nimbhorkar, has prayed for direction under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code. In short, it is the case of the first informant that marriage of his daughter Sushama @ Vaishali was settled with one Dnyaneshwar, working with the Irrigation Department at Gadchiroli. The said marriage was to be performed on 12/5/2009 at Sanskruti Lawn, Gadchiroli. 2 On 5.5.2009 Dnyaneshwar by making a phone call and by sending a message had called the first informant to his native place at Bhandara. The first informant had been to Bhandara alongwith four persons. Dnyaneshwar was not present at his house and his mother & uncle (applicant no.1) had given evasive answer. It is further the case of the first informant that on 2/5/2009 Dnyaneshwar had purchased certain articles for Bride Vaishali. On 3rd May, 2009, one Ganpatrao Vairagade – brother-in-law of Dnyaneshwar and Shri Kumbhalkar (probably accused no.1) had taken Dnyaneshwar to Gadchiroli and thus fled away bride- groom. It is also the case of the first informant that at the nick of time bride-groom Dnyaneshwar had put a condition of transferring the plot of land at Gadchiroli in his name. The first informant not having a sound financial condition was unable to meet the said demand of the bride-groom and hence the bride-groom has deliberately severed the marriage to be performed for non-compliance of the demand of dowry. It is also his case that on 1st May, 2009, while making purchases for marriage, Dnyaneshwar had taken Rs.30,000/- from the first informant. Thus, in short, it is the bone contention of the first informant that bride-groom Dnyaneshwar, his uncle (applicant no.1) and brother-in-law from Pachgaon (probably applicant no.2) had not turned up for marriage deliberately due to demand of dowry being not fulfilled. 3 The perusal of the case diary reveals that in addition to the first information report, the statement of mother of bride and her brother containing material identical as contained in the F.I.R., has been recorded during the course of the investigation. Thus prima facie consideration of material contained in case diary, which is of a nature as recited hereinabove, there appears substance in the submission canvassed by learned counsel for of the applicants that same fails to denote even prima facie commission of any act constituting commission of offences alleged against them. The same is apparent as the said material does not reveal any act even allegedly committed by the applicant prior to last demand allegedly made by accused bride- groom Dnyaneshwar, or even thereafter. Having regard to the same, there is substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants of themselves having made out a case for issuing a direction as prayed for. However, since the investigation is in progress, it will be necessary to impose certain conditions. Hence, the Investigating Officer of Crime No. 3015 of 2009 is hereby directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with the said crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail up till submission of charge- sheet in the said crime subject to each of them furnishing a P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with two sureties in the like amount and subject to the conditions that each of the applicants shall; 4 (i) make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required uptill filing of charge sheet for said crime; (ii) not directly or indirectly making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of crime under the investigation for dissuading the said person from disclosing the facts within his knowledge to the investigating Officer; (iii) residing at the residential address mentioned in the application and not changing the same without the permission of this Court; (iv)not committing any offence while being on bail granted by this order. By way of clarification, it is added that observations made in this order being made for limited purpose of deciding prayer of granting anticipatory bail made by the applicant, nothing in this order should be construed as an opinion expressed by the Court upon the merits of the matter Application stands disposed of. Hamdast allowed. JUDGE Rvjalit