1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1355 OF 2010 Sayed Gufran s/o Syed Dawood @ Babu ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, through police station Kinwat, District Nanded ...Respondent ..... Shri B.N.Gadegaonkar, advocate for the applicant Shri DV.Tele, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 20th April, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Shri B.N.Gadegaonkar, advocate for the applicant and Shri DV.Tele, A.P.P. for the respondent. 2 This is an application preferred by applicant seeking anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest under CR No. 22 of 2010, 2 registered at Kinwat police station, District Nanded for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 It appears that the offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by the complainant Farhana Syed Gufran on 19.2.2010 alleging that she married with the applicant herein on 25.5.2009 and after the marriage she was treated well initially for two months, but thereafter her husband I.e. applicant herein, her mother-in- law Vajida Begum @ Munnibai, Saba Vasim i.e elder sister in law, Anamzeba I.e. younger sister in law, subjected her to cruelty and physical and mental illtreatment in collusion with each other. It is also alleged that the complainant was abused by them in indecent language and was humiliated. It is further alleged that she was compelled to cook on electric live current stove by the afore said persons and they attempted to kill her. It is also alleged that the afore said persons made unlawful demand of Rs. Five Lacs from the complainant to be brought by her from her parental house for the purchase of black yellow jeep and even she was kept hungry by them for numerous times and she was driven out of the house by single wearing apparel. It is further recited in the said complaint that due to afore said harassment, the complainant's father made request to the applicant and his family members to treat complainant well, but he was also insulted by them. It is further stated in the said complaint that the applicant and other afore said family members assaulted the complainant and snatched her 3 jewellery and attempted to kill her by strangulating her neck. It is further alleged that on 19.2.2010 the complainant was taken to her parental house at Gokunda after assaulting her by the afore said persons and they quarreled with her father and abused him and stated to him that unless he would pay Rs. Five Lacs dowry, they would not allow the complainant to cohabit with the applicant. The said complaint further states that the complainant was carrying nine months pregnancy. 4 On the afore said background, learned counsel for the applicant canvassed that there are no specific dates and specific particulars in respect of allegations made against the applicant in the afore said complaint. It is also submitted that the allegation made in the said complaint that the complainant was taken to her parental house on 19.2.2010 is only made with a view to explain her stay at Kinwat. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that the notice was given by the applicant to the complainant before lodging the complaint i.e. on 19.2.2010, which is annexed at Exh.'C' and thereby called upon the complainant to resume with the applicant for cohabitation, but the complainant did not respond to the same. It is also submitted that the complaint is vague and there are omnibus allegations against the applicant. Moreover, it is also urged that nothing is to be recovered from the applicant, and therefore, there is no necessity of custodial interrogation of the applicant and hence present application deserves to be allowed. Learned counsel for the applicant 4 submitted that the other co-accused have been enlarged on anticipatory bail, and therefore, the applicant also deserves grant of bail on the ground of parity. 5 While opposing the present application, learned A.P.P. countered the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the applicant is the husband of the complainant and there are specific allegations against the applicant in the said complaint. Moreover, it is also submitted by the learned A.P.P. that the statements of the relatives have been recorded during the course of the investigation, which indicate that the complainant was subjected to cruelty, illtreatment and harassment by the applicant and his family members. Learned A.P.P. further submitted that investigation is still under progress, and therefore, present application deserves to be rejected. 6 On perusal of the investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is apparent from the complaint that the marriage between the applicant and the complainant was solemnized recently I.e. on 25.5.2009. Apparently there are serious allegations against the applicant in the complaint in respect of cruelty and mental and physical torture, to which the complainant was subjected by the applicant. Moreover, it also appears that unlawful demand of Rs. Five Lacs was made by the applicant and his family members to the complainant to be 5 brought by her from her parental house to purchase black yellow jeep and even it s reflected in the complaint that the complainant was kept hungry and she was driven out of matrimonial home by single wearing apparel. Even it is recited in the said complaint that an attempt was made to kill the complainant by applicant and his family members as stated therein after snatching her jewellery from her person. Hence, apparently it cannot be said that the complaint is vague and no particulars are given therein. It also appears that statements of witnesses have been recorded during the course of investigation and some of the said statements reveal that the complainant was illtreated by the applicant and his family members. 7 Hence, considering the accusations made against the applicant which are of serious nature, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for further progress in the investigation in proper perspective. Besides that, considering the contents of the complaint, apparently there is no possibility of false implication of the applicant in the present case. Considering the role of the applicant and considering the role of the co-accused persons, it is apparent that the applicant cannot be given benefit of parity, since apparently the role of the applicant in the commission of alleged offence is serious. In the circumstances, the present application deserves to be rejected. 8 In the result, present Criminal Application No. 1355 of 2010, 6 being sans merit, stands dismissed. Interim relief granted by this court on 9th April, 2010 stands vacated. 9 The above observations are prima facie observations and shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap1355.10