( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4452 OF 2010 1. Dattatraya s/o Hanmant Rathewad, R/o Mathur, Tq. Bhokar, District Nanded. 2. Kantabai w/o Ganesh Nakathe, R/o Dharjani, Tq. Bhokar, District Nanded. APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4430 OF 2010 1. Vishwanath s/o Bhojanna Madve 2. Anusayabai w/o Bhojanna Madve Both r/o Andhabori, Tq. Kinwat, District Nanded. 3. Durga w/o Sanjay Bhandare, R/o Yevati, Tq. Dharmabad, District Nanded. 4. Suwarna w/o Girmaji Chittapallu, R/o Kandakurti, Tq. Bodhan, District Nizamabad (A.P.) APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT .... Mr. Gajanan G. Kadam, advocate for the applicants in both the applications. Mr. D.V. Tele, APP for the respondent/State in both the applications. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 22nd November, 2010] ( 2 ) PER COURT : 1. These are two (2) applications filed by the applicants, one for the anticipatory bail and another for regular bail, in connection with crime No. 45/2010 registered at Islapur Police Station for offence punishable under section 498-A and 306 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code. 2. Heard learned advocate for the applicants and learned A.P.P. Perused the investigation papers which were made temporarily available during the hearing of the applications. 3. The learned advocate for the applicants submits that an application for bail to the extent of applicant No. 1 Vishwanath may be allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to apply for bail after the chargesheet is filed. 4. On consideration of the material gathered during course of investigation, it prima facie appears that the allegations are made against the applicants as they allegedly subjected deceased Sunita to matrimonial cruelty. So far as the applicants Dattatraya and Kantabai are concerned, it ( 3 ) appears that they are the maternal uncle and sister of the husband of deceased Sunita. They are not residing with the husband and deceased Sunita nor were members of the same family. They are named in the FIR on basis of omnibus statement about the matrimonial cruelty. Their arrest is not required for the purpose of any recovery of instrument/material. 5. So far as the regular bail application is concerned, it may be noted that the marriage of deceased Sunita and applicant Vishwanath was performed in the year 1997. It appears that after some period of the marriage, approximately of about two (2) years, Sunita was illtreated by the husband and his mother. It is alleged that her husband and the mother-in-law were demanding Rs. 70,000/- and used to trouble her due to non-involvement of such demand. So, the responsible persons arranged a meeting on festival of Panchami in the year 2001. Her husband and the mother-in-law were given a word of advice by the police patil and others to give proper treatment to her. She was residing with the husband and mother-in-law till that time. 6. The investigation papers purport to show that on ( 4 ) 8th October, 2010, Sunita immolated herself. She has not left any suicide note. The FIR is lodged on the basis of previous complaint made by deceased Sunita. The investigation papers do not show that the mother-in-law i.e. applicant No.2 and the sisters-in-law had subjected deceased Sunita to matrimonial cruelty soon before her death. Considering these aspects, the three (3) women accused i.e. mother-in-law and sisters-in-law deserve the discriminatory protection available under section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code since they are women. 7. In the result, the criminal application No. 4452/2010 is allowed and the applicants are directed to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, on furnishing of the bail bonds in sum of Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand) each before the Arresting Officer, and on condition that they shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called for the purpose of investigation/interrogation. The criminal application No. 4430/2010 is partly allowed, to the extent of the applicants No. 2 to 4 whereas it is dismissed to the extent of applicant No. 1 Vishwanath as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh bail application after filing of the chargesheet. The applicants No. 2 to 4 i.e. Anusayabai, Durga and Suwarna are directed to be released on ( 5 ) bail, on furnishing of bail bonds in sum of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) each with one solvent surety bond in the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Court of Sessions. Hamdast allowed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln4452-4430-10