1 Appln 5070-2010 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5070 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.667 OF 2010 1. Yamanaji s/o. Nanasaheb Tambe ..Applicants 2. Parubai w/o. Yamanaji Tambe 3. Tushar s/o. Yamanaji Tambe V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.Hemant Surve, Advocate, for the Applicants Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent - State Mr.Chetan Agarwal, Advocate, for Intervenor CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 19TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail by in-laws & husband of victim, who had filed a report for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 2 Appln 5070-2010 at Kalamboli Police Station, Kalamboli, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad which is registered as Crime No.I-459 of 2010. Though protection was granted to the applicants, applicant Nos.1 & 2 remained absent on the date of hearing. Consequently applicant No.1 has been arrested and therefore, insofar as application of applicant No.1 is concerned, it does not survive. As far as applicant No.2 Parubai is concerned, she was staying with applicant No.1 at Aurangabad. Even according to the victim, victim had shifted with applicant No.3 Tushar to Panvel, Navi Mumbai. The allegation about ill treatment which precede the filing of FIR pertained to activities of applicant No.3 Tushar. The learned APP contends that this ill treatment was at the instance of applicant No.2 Parubai, who allegedly made telephone calls etc. Even so the fact remains that it is not clear as to why applicant No.2 Parubai should be subjected to custodial interrogation. In view of this, applicant No. 3 Appln 5070-2010 2 Parubai is concerned, her application is allowed. Interim order dated 12th January, 2011 insofar as it relates to Parubai is confirmed. 3. Insofar as applicant No.3 is concerned, he is the husband. There are specific allegations against him about his conduct after the couple had shifted to Panvel, Navi Mumbai. It is not necessary to go into the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants about service of notice by R.P.A.D to the relations of the victim as also to the investigating officer. Considering nature of allegations made against applicant No.3 Tushar, his application for anticipatory bail is rejected. Applicant No.3 shall surrender before the investigating officer by tomorrow. If the applicant No.3 makes application for bail, the learned Magistrate decide the application for bail, if made promptly. 4 Appln 5070-2010 4. Criminal Application is disposed of. 5. In view of disposal of Criminal Application No.5070 of 2010, Criminal Application No.667 of 2010 does not survive and the same stands disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)