1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3785 OF 2009 Shekhar S/o.Sudhakarrao Deshmukh, Age-28 years, Occu-Service, As a labourer, R/o.Risod, Tq.Risod, Dist.Washim APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Incharge Police Station Officer, Sengaon, Tq.Sengaon, Dist. Hingoli 2. Superintendent of Police, Hingoli, Dist.Hingoli RESPONDENTS Mr.V.S.Pawar, learned counsel for applicant. Smt.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned APP for respondents. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 23/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with Crime No.72/2009 registered in Sengaon Police Station of District : Hingoli for an offence registered u/s. 302, 323, 498(A), r/w.34 of IPC. 2 2. In view of notice of the application served on the respondent State, papers of investigation till carried out are placed in my hand for my perusal at the time of arguments across the bar. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP for State. The alleged offence was registered in Sengaon Police Station on the basis of complaint lodged by one Raju Deshmukh that in the morning of 24/09/2009, his cousin sister in law reported to be dead while she was cleaning the toilet. It appears that thereafter, statement of one Pramod Deshmukh was recorded, the brother of the deceased wherein, alongwith other allegations, allegation is made that in laws i.e. husband and brother in law of the deceased are demanding and harassing the deceased on the count of dowry demand and as the demand was not specified, she was killed. On perusal of the statement of this Pramod Deshmukh, which was recorded on 25/09/2009, it is totally silent on the point as to when the incident occurred and during the occurrence of the said incident about the death of the victim, the particular role played by this applicant. On the contrary, the allegations are vague. 4. The alleged cause of death is due to consumption of poison. 5. It is urged across the bar that as the baby female child of the applicant was admitted in the hospital which is far away from the place from where the incident occurred and for about 7 days, the 3 baby child aged about 14 months was admitted in the hospital. These documents were produced alongwith the application. In the papers of investigation, it did not find that any investigation is carried out to find out the truth whether in reality, the baby female child was admitted in the hospital at Washim, where the parents i.e. the present applicant and his wife were remain with that baby child to take her care. But one fact is there that these papers clearly indicate at least at this stage that at the time of occurrence of the alleged incident, this applicant was not present at the spot nor he was present at the spot soon before the incident. If it is so, then even though, the application is vehemently opposed by learned APP, the application deserves following order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. The interim protection granted on 09/11/2009 is extended for the period of 4 weeks. 3. The applicant is at liberty to apply for regular bail during that period. 4. Application stands disposed of in terms of above order. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri-appl-3785-09