2809aba320.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 320 OF 2011 (Gopal Rangrao Rathod & 3 others Vs. The State of Maharashtra) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders .......................................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. Anil S. Mardijar, Adv. for the applicants. Mr. S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : U. V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 28TH SEPT., 2011 Heard. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicants who apprehend their arrest in Crime No. 130/2011 registered at police station Barshitakli for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 504, 506 and 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The first information report was lodged by deceased Swati on 21/8/2011 alleging that her husband Kiran Rathod was having illicit relationship with his aunt Manisha and she used to oppose the said relationship on account of which Kiran used to beat her and threaten to give divorce and to kill her. It is further stated in the said report that on 21/8/2011 at 8.00 a.m. on account of the said reason there was quarrel and Kiran assaulted her and she became unconscious when Kiran poured kerosene on her and tried to kill her. Deceased Swati died on 26/8/2011 and this report has become her dying declaration. 2809aba320.11.odt 2/3 4. On 22/8/2011 another statement of deceased Swati was recorded in detail by the Investigating Officer in which she had stated that she had informed about the said relationship of her husband with Manisha to all the family members, who included the present applicants and four others and that all of them were instigating Kiran against her due to which the incident occurred. The said supplementary statement has also become a dying declaration on account of her death on 26/8/2011. 5. All the said eight persons (family members of the husband of the deceased) except the husband of the deceased had filed application for anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola which was registered as Misc. Criminal Application No. 614/2011. By order dated 3/9/2011, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola has granted anticipatory bail to four of the co-accused persons, but refused to give anticipatory bail to the present applicants. 6. The contention of the learned A.P.P. is that in the second dying declaration, applicant No.4 Manisha is stated to have told the deceased that she would not allow her to live and to cohabit with Kiran and that she instigated Kiran against Swati. 7. No doubt, the above is mentioned in the second dying declaration, however, thereafter it is specifically stated that all the applicants of M.C.A. No. 614/2011, had played the same role of instigating Kiran against Swati. In these circumstances, the role of the present applicants is similar to the role of the alleged co-accused, who have been granted anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions 2809aba320.11.odt 3/3 Judge, Akola. 8. The present applicants are in magisterial custody and nothing is to be recovered at their instance. There are no criminal antecedents against the applicants. In the reply, it is stated that the applicants would tamper with prosecution witnesses and would cause danger to their lives. There is no substance in such fear because the other co-accused are granted anticipatory bail. In my view, therefore, the present applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail. 9. The application is, therefore, allowed. 10. In the event of arrest of the applicants in Crime No. 130/2011 registered at police station Barshitakli, each one of them shall be released on bail upon execution of personal recognition bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount under the following conditions, namely :- (i) The applicants shall attend Barshitakli Police Station as and when called upon by the Investigating Officer, to do so. (ii) The applicants 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. (iii) The applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of this Court. The application stands disposed of, accordingly. JUDGE wwl