1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1934 OF 2010 Ramprasad s/o Shankarrao Yelkar ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri Milind Patil, Advocate holding for Shri V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the applicant Shri R.P. Phatake, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, VACATION JUDGE DATED : 21st May, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. Milind Patil, learned counsel holding for Mr. V.D. Gunale, learned counsel for the applicant as well as heard Mr. R.P. Phatake, learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant, seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest under C.R. No.57/2010, registered at Renapur Police Station, District Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 3. It appears that, the offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by Mr. Vaijnath Vishwanath Mane, i.e. father of deceased Surekha, on 3.5.2010. It is alleged in the said complaint that his daughter Surekha married with Bansi Jadhav about four years back and the said couple was blessed with a daughter namely Sai @ Savita. It is also alleged in the said complaint that victim Surekha was subjected to cruelty and mental and physical torture by husband Bansi, father-in-law Vishnu, mother-in-law namely Shamlabai and the applicant herein, who is maternal uncle of the husband of victim namely Surekha for non-fulfillment of the unlawful demand of amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the construction of well. It is further alleged in the said complaint that, victim Surekha consumed poisonous substance and committed suicide on 2.5.2010 since she was fed up with the ill-treatment and harassment at the hands of aforesaid persons. 4. On the aforesaid background, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, the applicant is the distant relative of the victim and he resides at Ambajogai and is engaged in Census work as per the letter dated 16.4.2010 produced at Exhibit C. It is also canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant that there are general and omnibus allegations against the in-laws and no specific role has been attributed to the applicant herein. It is further 3 submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is an Assistant Teacher and, therefore, present application for grant of anticipatory bail be considered. 5. The learned A.P.P. opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the name of the applicant has been reflected in the complaint as well as specific role has been attributed to him in the commission of offence. It is further canvassed by the learned A.P.P. that the alleged offence is serious and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. The learned A.P.P. also pointed out that the daughter namely Savita of victim Surekha also was killed by the family members of deceased Surekha and F.I.R. to that effect has been filed on 17.5.2010. Hence, the learned A.P.P. submitted that the present application deserves to be rejected. 6. On perusal of investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, at the outset, it is apparent from the contents of the complaint that the name of the applicant has been reflected in the complaint and specific role has been attributed to him in the commission of the offence. Moreover, it also appears from the report that, it was transpired during the course of investigation that victim Surekha was allegedly suffering from HIV (Aids) and, therefore also, she 4 was ill-treated and subjected to cruelty by her husband and his family members as well as the applicant herein. Apparently, the allegations made against the applicant are of serious nature and there is no possibility of false implication of the applicant in the alleged offence. Hence, considering the nature and gravity of the accusations made against the applicant as well as seriousness of the offence, I am of the view that, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for the further progress in the investigation in proper perspective and, therefore, present application deserves to be rejected. 7. In the result, present application being sans merits, stands dismissed and interim protection stands vacated. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) VACATION JUDGE fmp/cri1934.10