1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3611 OF 2010 Kuldeepsingh S/o Swarnasingh Sandhu Age : 21 years, Occ : Business, R/o Abchalnagar Colony, Nanded. ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT ......... Mr. M.V. Ghatge holding for Mr. B.N. Gadegaonkar, advocate for applicant. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for respondent. ........ WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3379 OF 2010 Sukhjeetsing S/o Swarnasingh Sandhu Age : 32 years, Occ : Service, R/o Abchalnagar Colony, Nanded. ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT ......... Mr. M.V. Ghatge holding for Mr. B.N. Gadegaonkar, advocate for applicant. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for respondent. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 6th October, 2010. PER COURT : 1. These are the applications for anticipatory bail and 2 regular bail. 2. The application for anticipatory bail is filed by Kuldeepsingh, who is brother-in-law of the informant (victim), by name, Smt. Harpreetkaur. The regular bail application is filed by applicant-Sukhjeetsing, who is her husband. 3. Heard learned Advocate for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. for State. 4. Perusal of the F.I.R. and other investigation papers, prima facie, indicate that the marriage between the victim and applicant-Sukhjeetsing was performed on 1st May, 2008. It appears that after about four months, the relation between the spouces became strange. According to the victim, she was ill-treated and the husband and his relatives used to frequently abuse her. They used to insult her. She gave birth to female child. The husband and his relatives demanded an amount of Rs.3.5 Lac and told her to invest the amount in the name of minor female child. The victim continued to remain with her parents after the birth of female child. It is alleged that she went to reside with husband after some days. The husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law as well as sister-in- law continued to subject her to matrimonial cruelty. It is further 3 alleged that on 30th December, 2000, they abused her, husband beaten up her and drove her out of the matrimonial house at about midnight. Thereafter, she resided with her parents a few days and thereafter some respectable persons intervened and she was sent to house of husband. She lodged F.I.R. on 27th February, 2010 alleging that on 25th February, 2010 at about mid day, the husband and bother-in-law approached her while she was providing milk to the infant female child. Both of them caught her legs and made her to fall down. Her mother-in-law thereafter poured some handful of pills. The sister-in-law poured water in her mouth so that she shall gulp down the pills. She resisted and thereafter, sister-in-law pressed her nose. She became unconscious after the forcible administration of the pills. After she regained consciousness in the hospital, she lodged the F.I.R. 5. The learned Advocate for the applicants would submit that the victim was not at all interested in residing with her husband and had left his house on her own accord. He would point out that the notice was issued to the wife seeking her proper behaviour and return to the matrimonial home. The wife had replied that notice. It is argued that the reply to the notice does not show the allegations regarding the demand of Rs. 3.5 Lacs. It is contended that the false allegations are made in the F.I.R. and there is more 4 probability that wife-Harpreetkau herself had consumed the pills. 6. It is pertinent to notice that applicant-Sukhjeetsing was arrested immediately after the F.I.R. was lodged. His custodial interrogation is not required for the purpose of any recovery. It is also quite clear that there is reason to believe that he attempted to reconcile the matter by issuing notice to the wife. It is probable that the spouces were incompatible. At the same time, it is difficult to believe that Smt. Harpreetkaur attempted to commit suicide by consuming handful of such pills which resulted into her becoming unconscious. One can not be oblivious of the fact that she was required to attend the infont female child. Ordinarily, young mother would not have attempted to commit suicide which could have resulted into the lack of care to such an infont. 7. Since, there is no eye witness accounted regarding the incident and that presence of applicant-Sukhjeetsing is no more required with the police, for the purpose of effective investigation, it would be appropriate to grant him liberty under certain conditions. Still, however, there is prima facie evidence appearing against applicant-Kuldeepsingh and as such, he is not entitled to anticipatory bail. Hence, anticipatory bail application filed by applicant-Kuldeepsingh is dismissed whereas, the regular 5 bail application filed by applicant-Sukhjeetsing is allowed. He is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing of P.Bs. in sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand ) with one solvent surety for the satisfaction of the Court of Sessions at Nanded and on further condition that he shall not contact any of the prosecution witnesses nor shall make any attempt to tamper the prosecution witnesses. The applications are accordingly disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/cri3611.10