1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 933 OF 2010 1 Laxman s/o Agaji Tirukhe, 2 Janabai w/o Laxman Tirukhe, 3 Pradeep s/o Laxman Tirukhe, 4 Anita w/o Santosh Goje ....Applicants VERSUS 1 The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Smt. S.S.Jadhav, advocate for the applicants Shri S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. assisted by Shri Joydeep Chatterjee, learned counsel for the respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 30th March, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Heard Smt. S.S.Jadhav, advocate for the applicants and Shri S.G.Nandedkar, A.P.P. assisted by Shri Joydeep Chatterjee, learned counsel for the respondent. 2 This is an application preferred by applicant nos. 1 to 4 seeking anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest under CR No. 2 I-35 of 2010, registered at Sadar Bazar police station, Jalna for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3 At the out set, interim protection was granted to the applicants by order passed on 5.3.2010 by this court. 4 After hearing learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State extensively for substantial period, learned counsel Smt. Jadhav, on instructions, sought permission to withdraw the application to the extent of applicant no.1-Laxman s/o Agaji Tirukhe, applicant no.2-Smt. Janabai w/o Laxman Tirukhe and applicant No.3-Pradeep s/o Laxman Tirukhe, with a request to extend their interim protection till 1.4.2010 and submitted that they shall surrender before the investigating agency on 1.4.2010. 5 Considering the afore said submission, present Criminal Application No. 933 of 2010, to the extent of applicant nos. 1 to 3 stands dismissed as withdrawn, extending their interim protection till 1.4.2010. 6 As regards applicant no.4-Anita w/o Santosh Goje is 3 concerned, learned counsel for the applicants canvassed that she is a married sister in law of victim Sapna and she resides at Aurangabad separately from deceased Sapna and her husband Sandeep. It is also urged that she delivered a male child recently i.e. on 31.5.2007 and birth certificate to that extent has been annexed at Exh. ‘G’, and therefore, learned counsel submitted that her application be considered for grant of anticipatory bail. 7 Learned A.P.P. opposed the present application in respect of applicant no.4 and submitted that death of deceased Sapna has taken place within the period of three years from the date of her marriage and it is further canvassed that name of applicant no.4-Anita has been reflected in the first information report and there is prima facie evidence against her, and therefore, it is submitted that her application be rejected. 8 On perusal of the investigation papers and after considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.P.P., there is no dispute that applicant no.4-Anita is married sister in law of deceased Sapna and she has been separately residing along with her husband. The birth certificate Exh. ‘G’ also discloses that recently she has delivered a male child on 31.5.2007. Moreover, although her 4 name has been reflected in the first information report, no specific overt act has been attributed to her in the alleged offence. Hence, her application is required to be considered for grant of anticipatory bail, however, subject to certain conditions. 9 In the result, present Criminal Application No. 933 of 2010 to the extent of applicant no.4-Anita w/o Santosh Goje is allowed and interim protection granted to her by order dated 5.3.2010 stands confirmed and it is directed that in the event of her arrest under CR No. I-35 of 2010, registered at Sadar Bazar police station, Jalna, she be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing P.R. bond in the like amount, on the condition that she shall attend the police station as and when required and shall cooperate in the investigation and shall not tamper with the evidence and/or influence upon the witnesses directly or indirectly. However, the application of applicant nos. 1 to 3 stands dismissed as withdrawn. 10 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, J.) dbm/crap933.10