( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3953 OF 2010 1. Vithal s/o. Babasaheb Gade .. Applicants Age. 60 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. Tippatwadi, Tq. & Dist. Beed. 2. Bhagirathibai w/o. Vithal Gade Age. 55 years, Occ. Household, R/o. As above. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents 2. The Superintendent of Police, Through Rural Police Station, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3955 OF 2010 Namdev @ Pappu s/o. Vithalrao Gade .. Applicant Age. 23 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. Tippatwadi, Tq. & Dist. Beed. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents 2. The Superintendent of Police, Through Rural Police Station, Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed. Mrs. Renuka Ghule-Palve, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. B.J. Sonawade, A.P.P. for the respondents. ( 2 ) CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR,J. DATED : 19.10.2010 P.C. :- 1. These are applications for anticipatory bail and regular bail respectively, filed by the in-laws of deceased Sheetal and her husband. The in-laws of deceased Sheetal are seeking anticipatory bail; whereas her husband seeks regular bail. 2. Heard learned advocate Mrs. Palve for the applicants and learned A.P.P. Mr. B.J. Sonawane. Perused investigation papers. 3. It appears that deceased Sheetal was married with Namdev @ Pappu on 9th June, 2009. Her death occurred on 13th August, 2010 i.e. within about one years and two months of the marriage. The prosecution alleges that deceased Sheetal was being subjected to matrimonial cruelty on account of non- fulfillment of unlawful demand of Rs. 3 lakhs. They required said amount for purchasing truck vehicle. It is alleged that on one occasion she was driven out of matrimonial house and ( 3 ) was instructed to bring the amount. About a month prior to the incident her father had brought her back to the house of the husband. He requested the applicant to give her proper treatment. It is alleged that she committed suicide by jumping in the well, due to unbearable torture and the matrimonial cruelty. 4. So far as anticipatory bail application is concerned, it may be gathered from the recitals of the F.I.R. that both the applicants are named in the F.I.R. The father of the deceased alleged that about four days prior to the incident he had contacted deceased Sheetal on mobile phone and then she informed him that her in-laws, husband and the brother-in-law were giving lot of trouble to her. She had requested him to come earlier and take her away. Needless to say, the applicants are named as the persons who used to subject deceased Sheetal to matrimonial cruelty. It is argued that both the applicants were residing separately from deceased Sheetal and her husband. This argument, prima facie, does not appeal to me. The investigation papers go to show that they were residing together with deceased Sheetal and her husband. The remedy of anticipatory bail is ( 4 ) available only when there is a genuine case which shows that the accused is likely to be arrested without any substantial reason and is likely to humiliate due to such arrest. The relief of anticipatory bail is not available just for asking or where there is prima facie case available against the applicants. In the present case, role of the applicants is prima facie clarified in the F.I.R. and other investigation papers. Under these circumstances, they are not entitled to the discretionary relief and their application deserves to be dismissed. 5. So far as application filed by Namdev @ Pappu is concerned, it may be gathered that he was immediately arrested after the incident and is behind bars for about couple of month. Nothing has remained to be recovered from him. The F.I.R. purports to show general allegations of matrimonial cruelty against him. The statement of neighbouring witnesses do not pin-point any particular incident of matrimonial cruelty. The applicant is not likely to flee from the Court of justice. Hence, he is entitled to seek regular bail. ( 5 ) 6. In the result, Criminal Application No. 3953 of 2010 filed by applicant Vithal and another is dismissed. Criminal Application No. 3955 of 2010 filed by applicant – Namdev is allowed. He is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond in sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of Court of Sessions and on condition that he shall not contact any of the prosecution witnesses nor shall make any attempt to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2010/OCT10/cria3953.10