1 criapln2113-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2113 OF 2011 1] Maroti Madhav Harakari 2] Madhav Rangrao Harkari 3] Rajaram Madhav Harakari .. Applicants. Vs The State of Maha. .. Respondent ... Shri Shashikant S. Londhe,Adv. for applicants. Shri S.G.Nandedkar,APP for Respondent-State ... CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE,J. DATE : 06/06/2011 ORAL ORDER: 1] This Application for bail is filed in C.R.No.33/11 registered with Balapur police station, Dist.Hingoli. Crimie is registered for offence under Sections 304-B, 306, 498-A r.w. 34 of I.P.C. The report is made by father of the deceased. The deceased was given in marriage to the applicant no.1 on 6/5/2007. The applicant no.2 is the father of applicant no.1 and applicant no.3 is brother of applicant no.1. 2] Allegations are made that in the marriage, there was an 2 criapln2113-11 agreement to pay Rs.50,000/- or a motor cycle to the applicant no.1. Due to poor financial condition, father of deceased could not give motor cycle and so ill-treatment was given to the deceased. It is also contended that when the wife of applicant no.2 was sick, demand of Rs.30,000/- was made and on that occasion, the amount was given by selling bullocks by complainant in the presence of independent witnesses. Allegations are made that as the motor cycle was not given for about 8-9 months, deceased was kept with the parents by the husband. It is contended that on 12/4/11, deceased committed suicide by jumping into the well of one Kadam alongwith her daughter. The father has contended that due to the harassment caused by the husband-applicant no.1 and other relatives of the husband, as the demand was not met with, suicide was committed by his daughter. 3] The papers of investigation are made available. There are statements of witnesses like Kishanrao to show that the amount of Rs. 30,000/-was given in the past by the complainant as the amount was required for treatment of wife of applicant no.2. The other papers show that the demand was mainly by the husband as he wanted to purchase motor cycle. The incident took place in the well belonging to one Kadam. There is material to make out prima facie case against the husband for aforesaid offences. The applicant nos.2 and 3 are also involved as the accused by the complainant and other relatives of the deceased as they are relatives of applicant no.1. Certificate is 3 criapln2113-11 produced by applicant no.3 to show that he is residing separate. In any case, the demand was mainly by the husband as he wanted to purchase motor cycle. There is one more circumstance that the wife of applicant no.2 needs somebody near her as she is suffering from Cancer. In these circumstances, application for bail to applicants 2 and 3 i.e. father and brother of the applicant no.1 deserves to be allowed. However, it is not a fit case for granting bail to applicant no.1- husband of the deceased. So the following order : Application of applicant no.1 Maroti Madhav Harakari is rejected. Application of applicant no.2 Madhav Rangrao Harakari and applicant no.3 Rajaram Madhav Harakari is allowed. They be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/- each with one solvent surety each in the like amount. Applicant nos.2 and 3 shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and they shall cooperate the police during the investigation. They shall not enter the village of complainant. [T.V.NALAWADE,J.] umg/criapln2113-11