1 ABAG-364.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.364 OF 2011 {For Anticipatory Bail} Mrs. Priya Manohar Patil .... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .... Respondent S/Shri S.V. Marwadi a/w Yogesh Rawool i/b S.S. Redekar for the Applicant. Shri Y.M. Nakhwa, APP, for the State. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.376 OF 2011 Ravikant Daji Modak @ Gharat & Ors. .... Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Shri K.S. Patil for the Applicants. Ms G.P. Mulekar, APP, for the State. Shri V.V. Gangurde for the original complainant in both Applications. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: MAY 05, 2011 P.C: 1. These are applications for anticipatory 2 ABAG-364.11 bail by a mediator and the victim's sister in- law, sister in-law s husband and the husband's mother. The allegation is that on 1-4-2011 these persons came to the house of the victim's parents where the victim was staying with her husband. While the other applicants held the victim, applicant Dipti kicked and gave fist blows on the victim's abdomen which led to the victim's miscarriage on 3-4-2011. A report was given on 4-4-2011 by the victim herself on which an offence was registered. The learned counsel for the applicants point out that the victim had given a report to the police on 1-4-2011 itself which was registered as a non- cognizable report bearing No.642 of 2011. In the report there is no reference to the mediator as well as applicant Hirubai. The report is only against Dipti and her husband Ravikant. Even this report does not mention that any assault was launched on the abdomen of the victim. Dipti seems to have also lodged a report with the police which was registered as a non-cognizable report. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned APPs. The learned APPs have strong objection to the applicants being admitted to anticipatory bail. They state that all the applicants had joined in the assault on the 3 ABAG-364.11 victim which led to the victim's miscarriage. First, it is not clear when the victim's husband was very much present when the assault was launched, what prevented him from immediately giving a report about the incident to the police. It is also not clear as to what made the victim mention only about threats given and damage to property when she first went to the police station and her non- cognizable report was received by the police. All the same, since the victim seems to have given the history of assault by the sister in- law to the medical officer in the hospital where eventually she had the miscarriage on 3-4-2011, complicity of Dipti, for the present, should be taken as indicated. But as far as the other applicants are concerned, there is no reason why the other applicants should suffer custodial interrogation in the light of the manner in which the allegations have surfaced. Therefore, the interim order dated 28-4-2011 in respect of Priya (Criminal Application No.364 of 2011) is confirmed. 2. As far as applicants Ravikant and Hirubai (Criminal Application No.376 of 2011) are concerned, in the event of their arrest in C.R. No.I-125 of 2011 of Manickpur Police 4 ABAG-364.11 Station, District Thane, they be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.25,000/- per person on the condition that they shall report at the police station concerned on 12-5-2011 at 11:00 a.m. for interrogation and thereafter as and when required by the I.O.. They shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and they shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the trial Court. 3. This order, in so far as it relates to applicants Priya, Ravikant and Hirubai is concerned, shall remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if charge-sheeted, the applicants may furnish fresh bond before the trial Court in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court, dated 2-12-2010, delivered in Criminal Appeal No.2271 of 2010, arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.7615 of 2009 {Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.}. 5 ABAG-364.11 4. So far as the application of Dipti is concerned, the same is rejected. 5. The applications accordingly stand disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)