IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 448 2009 (Haribhau Bhavar & 3 .vs. State of Maharashtra) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s orders appearances, Court’s orders of directions and Registrar’s orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 15 th APRIL, 2009 Heard Shri Jaiswal, Advocate for applicant and Shri Sonare, A.P.P. for state. This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. Applicants who are in laws of the deceased,are being prosecuted for the offences punishable under section 498-A, 306, 304-B r/w 34 of I.P.C.along with the husband of the deceasedi.e. the son of the applicant no. 1 - Haribhau. It is the caseof the applicants that whole family has been implicated, though there were no concrete allegations. According to the applicants, the death of the deceased had occurred on 14.10.20089 and the father of the deceasedwas present at the time of postmortem examination. Still report was lodged on 15.10.2008 in the afternoon. Learned A.P.P.has contended that there was no delay in lodging the report. It appears that the husband of the deceasedhas not applied for bail. Allegations against the applicants are that they had causedill-treatment to the deceasedfor demand of money. It is recorded in the statement of the complainant that the applicants are the in laws of the deceasedwho used to ill-treat & beat her. Postmortem note does not show any indication of beating just prior to the date of incident. Possibility of implication of the applicant on suspicion cannot be overruled. More so becauseit appearsthat the applicant no.4 who is stated to be maternal uncle is also involved by the complainant. In these circumstances,the applicants would be entitled for bail, however subject to conditions. Each of the applicants be released on bail on their furnishing surety and PRB in the sum of Rs.15000/- subject to condition that they shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall attend the trial regularly. Bail in trial court. Application disposed of. Hamdast granted. It is made clear that above observations are in prima facie view of the matter. The same shall not influence the learned trial Judge in any way, while deciding the matter on merits. JUDGE smp