1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO:3074 /2009 ((1) Shamrao Sakharam Jadhav and another vs. State of Maharashtra ) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order Mr S J Khandalkar, Adv.for applicants Mr.D P Thakare A.P.P. for Respondent Mr Patwardhan, Adv.for complainant C ORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J. DATED : 29th August, 2009. Heard learned counsel for the respective aprties. 2. Atthe interim stage of this application, interim anticaproty bail was granted on 14th August,2009. Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that for the reasons stated in the order dated 14th August 2009 on the gorund of delay i ldoging the FIR as also onthe groudntht close relative sf the deceased or parents,brothers etc. are trying toblackmail the applicant as also considering the ripe ages of the applciants, inteirm anticaproty bail may be confirmed, considering the nature of accusations of possibility of false implication. 3. Learned APP assisted by Mr.Patwardhan opposed grant of anticiaproty bail . According to learned Advocate mr Patwardhan on behalf of the first information he atcontended that startling fact has been disclosed tohim by the first informant tht her hsuabdn Lalaram Gulabsingh Ade had immediately on the following day of the incident whicvh ocurred on 25.5.2009 had lodged compliant informing the Station House Officer of Police Station Mahagaon against one Ramesh BhatuRathod (2) Suresh Bhatu Rathod (3) Sarjabai Bhatu Rathod and (4) Bhatu Badhu Ratjhod, all R/o Amni Tq,Mahagaon Dist. yavatmal that they in conspiracy with each other administered poison to his daughter Surekha and attempted to commit her 2 murder. It is also informed that Surekha was ill-treated on the ground that demand ofRs.50,000 from her in laws and was subjectedto physical trouble as well as mentral trauma. It is also informed tht they had assaulted the victim earlier by means of inflamed wooden piece in the reuslt victim had received injury on her abdomenthe mark of which was stil there. Thus, according tothe father of the deceased complaitn regarding ill-treatment and attemoted tocommit murder aginstthe above perons was lodged with details which was acknowledged on 25.6.2009 by Constbale( b.No./ 1257) and H.C. (B.No. 856) from Police Station Mahagaon on 26.5.2009. Learned Advocate for the applicant that in this compliant also, names of the present aplciants are nto mentioned. Be that as it may, when informationw a slodged regarding serious and cognizable offence like attempt to commit murder on the following day of the incident by father of the deceased Surekha the Station Hosue Officer of Mahagaon ought to report as to who had acknowledged the compliant on 26.5.2009 and whaat enquiry was made in respect of the compliant lodged by Lalaram Gulabsingh Ade and what action wa s taken as also why cognizance was taken earlier from 26.5.2009 in respect of such complaint at that time it appears that deceased was still living . The learned APP to send copy of the complaint along with copy of this order to the Superintendent of Police, Yavatmal and through the Officeof S.P. the Station House officer, mahagaon Police Station Dist. Yavatmal be informed to submit report to his Corut within ten days fro the date of this order. The learned Advocate who is assistanted ther learned APP to file an affidvit of Lalaram Gulabsingh Ade. The one copy of the compliant shall be kept on record. SO. 10th Sept.2009.Steno copy allowed. JUDGE. sahare