1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1890 OF 2010 (Viraj Vinayak Hardas .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 N.S. Khandewale, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.M. Bhagde, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 10TH DECEMBER, 2010. Heard. By way of present application, the applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime No. 260/2010 registered with the Police Station, Pratapnagar, Nagpur. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the report came to be lodged against the applicant by his wife Kshipra is based on mere vague allegations. He further submits that the vague allegations are made against the applicant and other family members that the applicant and other family members were ill treating the complainant-wife. He further submits that initially the wife approached to the police authorities and police authorities referred the matter to the Women’s Cell attached to the Police Station. Unfortunately, the matter was not settled and the wife submitted that she is not ready to cohabit with the applicant and his family members. He further submits that only due to extract of the amount from the bank, a false case is lodged with the police. He further submits that on the same set of circumstances, the other accused released on bail and as such the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. Learned APP has opposed the application by filing reply on behalf of the State. Perusal of the report reveals that in the year 2008, after the marriage, the complainant/wife found behaviour of the applicant suspicious. She further found that the 2 applicant was indulged in extra marital relations. It is further stated that the grievance was made to the other family members. The family members of the applicant asked the wife to keep mum. It is also stated in the report that the applicant is addicted to vices and the report further reveals that in the recent past i.e. in the month of June, 2010, the complainant found the applicant indulged in extra marital relations again. The victim has further stated in the report that she fed up with the behaviour of the applicant and was left with no choice but to approach to her parents. The reply filed by the learned APP reveals that the statement recorded by the investigating agency shows that the complainant was subjected to ill treatment which was disclosed to these persons. It is stated in the reply that as the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant is serious and it requires thorough investigation and if the applicant is protected or released on bail, it would hamper investigation and as such the custodial interrogation of the applicnt is necessary. I find considerable merit in the submissions made by the learned APP. In view of the prima facie strong material against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant any protection at the hands of this Court. In the result, the application is rejected. JUDGE *rrg.