1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1743 OF 2010 (Sau. Shakuntala Kisan Ghumare .v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri U.J. Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant. Shri P.V. Bhoyar, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 02ND DECEMBER, 2010. Heard. By way of present application, the applicant is seeking anticipatory bail for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498-A read with Sections 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime No.114/2010 registered with the Police Station, Telhara, District Akola. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the bare perusal of the report would show that except vague statement, there is no material against the applicant. He further submits that the bare perusal of the report would show that on that day, a quarrel took place between victim Sharda and her husband who was under the influence of liquor and victim Sharda consumed poison. He further submits that the applicant is a lady of 60 years age and there is no chance of her leaving usual place of residence or she may indulge herself in tampering of the evidence. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that on such a vague statement and as there is no material against the applicant, there is no need of any custodial interrogation of the applicant and the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Learned APP has filed the reply. In the reply, it is stated that the victim was subjected to torture and harassment. It is submitted that on two occasions, the victim had been to her parental home and the intervention of the relatives failed and could not settle dispute between the couple amicably. Though a statement is made that the victim/deceased was put to torture and 2 harassment, perusal of the record shows that except vague statement, there is no material to show what sort of ill treatment was caused at the hands of the applicant to the victim. It is also revealed from the record that there was no demand of any money and as such there is no material brought by the investigating so as to suggest the requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicant. In the result, the application is allowed. Interim protection granted by this Court on 27th October, 2010 is confirmed. Hamdast allowed. JUDGE *rrg.