{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1892 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2010 OF 2010 XXX CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1892 OF 2010 1. Indubai w/o Sakharam Gore Age-60 years, Occ-Household 2. Gumpha w/o Prakash Gore Age-35 years, Occ-Household 3. Mangal w/o Suresh Gore Age-28 years, Occ-Household All R/o Vidoli, Tq-Mantha, Dist-Jalna APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Superintendent of Police, Jalna, Dist-Jalna RESPONDENTS ....... Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for the applicants Mr. K.S.Patil, APP for respondent State ....... WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2010 OF 2010 {2} 1. Sakharam Dnyanaba Gore Age-60 years, Occ-Agri 2. Praksh Sakharam Gore Age-35 years, Occ-Agri Both R/o Vidoli, Tq-Mantha, Dist-Jalna APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Inspector, Police Station, Mantha Tq-Mantha, Dist-Jalna RESPONDENT ....... Mr. R.J.Nirmal, Advocate for the applicants Mr. K.S.Patil, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 10 th June 2010 PER COURT: 1. Criminal application No.1892/2010 is preferred by mother in law and co sisters of deceased Sangita whereas criminal application No.2010/2010 has been preferred by father in law and brother in law of the deceased. By filing both these applications, the respective applicants have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.68/2010 registered with Mantha police station for an offence punishable u/s 498-A, 304-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. {3} 2. Heard learned counsel for respective parties. Perused the papers of investigation carried out till today. 3. From perusal of the complaint and other papers of investigation, it appears that deceased Sangita got married with Gajanan, son of first applicants in both the applications, somewhere in the year 2005. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, dowry of Rs.1,25,000/- was agreed to be paid and out of which 75,000/- were paid and Rs.50,000/- were remained to be paid. As balance amount of Rs.50,000/- was not paid, it is alleged that, there was constant harassment of the deceased, which she had reported to her parents. It appears from the allegations in the complaint that in the early hours of 15th April 2010 the complainant received a message that Sangita is admitted in civil hospital at Jalna as she had consumed some poisonous substance and hence he went there. Sangita expired in the hospital. Thereafter, the complaint came to be lodged against the applicants, husband and another brother in law of the deceased. 4. After going through the complaint it is clear that so far as allegations against the present applicants are concerned, they are omnibus and vague in nature. Apart from it there are allegations of torture and repeated assault by the applicants to satisfy their demand since about 15 days continuously before the alleged incident. However, PM notes do not support these {4} allegations, as no external injury was found on the person of the deceased at the time of conducting autopsy. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that out of the wedlock, deceased Sangita has delivered a male child, who is of 3 years, the marriage was performed in the year 2003 where as the alleged incident has occurred in the year 2010 and that too after deceased has delivered a child 3 years prior to the incident. If it is so, the entire scenario creates doubt and suspicion about the allegations. 5. In the premise, though the learned APP has opposed the application, yet in view of above discussion, it is a fit case where the applicants deserve to be released on anticipatory bail. 6. In the result, both the applications are allowed. The interim protection granted on 11th May and 28th May respectively, is hereby confirmed and to remain in force till filing of the charge sheet. The applicants are directed to cooperate with the investigating agency and to attend the concerned police station whenever required by the IO concerned, on written requisition. The applicants are also directed not to contact or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Both the applications stand disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln1892-2010-10