1 Appln 4270-10 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4270 OF 2010 Sunil Ramchandra Teke ..Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Mr.Jayant Bardeskar, for the Applicant Mrs.P.H.Kantharia, APP, for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 19TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. . This is an application for anticipatory bail by the applicant in connection with C.R.No.102 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Malshiras Police Station, District Solapur. 2. The applicant is brother-in-law of victim, who died of hanging on 6th September, 2010 in the morning within a period of one and half months of marriage. According to the 2 Appln 4270-10 learned Counsel for the applicant, applicant was a teacher in Zilla Parishad and he was in fact in the School when he received a phone call that the victim was not responding from a room which was closed. He, therefore, came to his house and since the victim did not open the door, got an Axe and broke open the door and found that the victim had committed suicide by hanging herself with her Odhani. The learned APP has strong objection for allowing anticipatory bail of applicant on the ground that there are statements of two neighbours, who state about applicant's presence at the house around the time of the incident. This presence is consistent with the applicant's claim and that he came back, on coming to know victim's not responding. The other witnesses, who state about procuring an Axe from his house is also explained since the door of the room which was found to have been broken open. The learned APP submits that the door had two latches, one at the top 3 Appln 4270-10 and one at the centre and wondered as to how the applicant could know latch at the top was not in fact latched. All this must be looked into at the time of trial. It is not clear from the material which is so far collected as to how the applicant's claim is ruled out by the evidence collected. Therefore, applicant's presence in custody may not be necessary for the purpose of further investigation. The applicant was already available for interrogation from 1st October, 2010 and it is not known as to what clues have been provided to the investigating officer. 3. In view of this, order passed on 29th September, 2010 is confirmed till the charge sheet is filed. 4. Criminal Application is disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)