(1) Cri. Application No. 4322 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 4322 of 2011 Shri Ananda @ Anna Dhanaji Ahire, Age : 49 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Malanjan, Taluka : Sakri, Dist. Dhule. .. Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondent. ....................... Mr. Shrikant S. Patil, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. R.K. Ladda, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent. ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 19TH OCTOBER 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Perused the investigation papers which were made available for inspection purpose, and heard learned respective Counsel for the parties, finally. (2) Cri. Application No. 4322 of 2011 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 74/2011, registered at Police Station, Pimpalner (Taluka : Sakri, District : Dhule), for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A, 323, 504, 506, read with Section 34, of Indian Penal Code, and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. It appears that the crime has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, namely, Kashinath s/o. Shankar Ahire i.e. father of the victim Nayana, on 21st August 2011, against the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is alleged in the complaint, that the complainant's daughter Nayana was married with Arun s/o. Ramesh Pawar on 13-3-2011. The applicant herein is the maternal uncle of said Arun Pawar. There are allegations that the unlawful demand of amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was made by the inlaws to the said victim Nayana, for the business purpose, to be brought from parental house, and due to non-fulfillment of said demand, she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty. It is alleged in the said complaint that on 4-8-2011, when the said unlawful demand of Rs. 1,50,000/- was made to the victim Nayana, the applicant herein was present there. However, although the presence of the (3) Cri. Application No. 4322 of 2011 applicant is reflected in the contents of the FIR on the aforesaid date at the relevant time, no overt act / specific role has been attributed to the applicant, therein. Moreover, the incident of committal of suicide by the victim Nayana by pouring kerosene on her person and setting herself ablazed took place on 20th August 2011, but the contents of the FIR does not reflect the presence of the applicant there, at the said time. Accordingly, there are general and omnibus allegations against the applicant herein, and apparently, nothing is to be recovered from the possession of the applicant or at his instance. Moreover, it also cannot be ignored that the applicant is resident of Malanjan (Taluka : Sakri, District : Dhule), whereas the victim Nayana and her family were residing at Pawaddev Phata (Taluka : Sakri, District : Dhule), and even the applicant was not residing with the victim and her family. 4. Having comprehensive view of the matter, and considering the accusations made against the applicant, and nature and gravity thereof, it appears that there is no necessity for custodial interrogation of the applicant for further progress in the investigation, and hence, interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant, on 10th October 2011 deserves to be made absolute, but on certain conditions. (4) Cri. Application No. 4322 of 2011 5. In the result, present Criminal Application is allowed, and the interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant, on 10th October 2011, stands confirmed on the following conditions : (i) Applicant shall give attendance before the concerned investigator, once in a week i.e. on every Friday, between 5.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m., till filing of the charge sheet, and shall cooperate in the investigation. (ii) Applicant shall not influence upon the prosecution witnesses and/or tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly. 6. Present Criminal Application is disposed of finally. 7. However, it is made clear that the above observations are prima facie in nature, and same 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 ......................... bgp/ka4322