1 Cri-A-79-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 79 OF 2011 Mrs. Mita Dipesh Bhagat ... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Smt. V.V.Thorat,Advocate, for the applicant. Mrs. P.P.Shinde, APP, for the respondent - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 7th February, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The application is filed by the original complainant for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by the Sessions Court as per the order dated 6.1.2011. 3. The applicant was married to Dipesh son of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 sometime in the year 2004 and since then she is living with her husband and in- laws in the same house. On 3.4.2010, she lodged a complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC. The learned 2 Cri-A-79-11.sxw Magistrate directed the police to investigate the case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Apprehending arrest, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, being father-in-law and mother- in-law of the applicant, sought anticipatory bail which was granted by the Sessions Court. As per the complaint, her mother-in-law - respondent no.3 had illicit relations with somebody else and to cover up that, she used to harass the applicant and then in the month of January, 2010, she made demand of Rs.30 lakh as dowry. From the facts disclosed, it appears that for about six years after the marriage, there was never any demand of dowry. The problem arose because, according to the applicant, her mother-in-law had illicit relations with somebody else and she wanted to cover the same. It is strange that in such circumstances, the mother-in- law would start making demand of Rs.30 lakh as dowry and that too six years after the marriage. 4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, I see no reason to interfere in the order passed by the Sessions Court. The Application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)