(1) CRI.APP. 3540.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3540 OF 2010 1. Sayyad Razak S/o Gulab, Age : 62 years, Occu.: Labour, 2. Sayyad Mujib S/o Sayyad Sattar, Age : 22 years, Occu.: Labour, 3. Sayyad Sattar S/o Sayyad Razak, Age : 42 years, Occu.: Labour, All R/o Santuk Pimpri, Tq. and Dist. Hingoli .. Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through P.S. Hingoli (Rural), Tq. and Dist. Hingoli (Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) .. Respondent ... Mr. N.N. Chitlange, Advocate for the Applicants Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 11TH OCTOBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. The Application is for bail. 2. The applicant no.1 is the father of Sayyad Sultan and father-in-law of deceased Rizwana. The (2) CRI.APP. 3540.2010 applicant nos. 2 and 3 are his close relatives. The FIR purports to show that marriage of deceased Rizwana and son of the applicant no.1, namely, Sayyad Sultan was performed before about 18 years of the alleged incident. It is alleged that the husband and the applicant used to ill-treat her on account of non-fulfillment of unlawful demand. It appears that her husband had obtained loan of Rs.10,000/- from her father for construction of house but the same was not repaid. The FIR purports to show that about three months prior to the incident, Rizwana was beaten up by her husband for the reason that she used to talk with someone on phone. It appears from recitals of the FIR that there was misunderstanding between the deceased Rizwana and her husband and they were not pulling on well with each other. It further appears that the incident occurred in the house of the informant i.e. in the matrimonial house of deceased Rizwana on 8.8.2010. She was suffering from diorrhea and was given treatment. It is alleged that the applicants alongwith husband of Rizwana went to house of the informant in the evening time. At the (3) CRI.APP. 3540.2010 relevant time, she was engaged in cooking. No sooner she stopped the cooking and proceeded to serve water to her husband, her husband Sayyad Sultan dealt successive blows of knife on her person. The FIR purports to show that the applicants held the informant and his wife while they were trying to proceed for the purpose of intervention or rescuing the injured Rizwana. She was seriously injured and fell down in the house after she sustained blows of knife on her abdomen. On way to the hospital, she died. 3. So far as the applicants are concerned, it may be gathered that they were not at all armed with any weapon. They did not assault deceased Rizwana at the relevant time. The only role attributed to them is of prohibiting her parents from going to help her while she was being subjected to the assault at hands of her husband. The case of the applicants do not prima facie show that they intended to do away with the life of deceased Rizwana notwithstanding the fact that they restrained her parents from going to help her. The allegations in the FIR would show that the (4) CRI.APP. 3540.2010 marriage between deceased Rizwana and Sayyad Sultan had been performed before about 18 years and intermittently there was misunderstanding between the spouses. He had suspected her fidelity because she used to talk with someone on phone. The recitals of the FIR do not show that soon before the incident, the applicants had subjected deceased Rizwana to any serious matrimonial cruelty. 4. Under these circumstances, though there is prima facie evidence to show that Sayyad Sultan intended to eliminate deceased Rizwana yet, the applicants may not be the contributors of the common intention only because they were present and restrained her parents from going forward to rescue her. 5. Taking overall view of the matter, the Application is granted. The applicants are directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds in sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) each alongwith a surety bond each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court of Sessions at Hingoli and (5) CRI.APP. 3540.2010 on further condition that they shall not contact any of the prosecution witness and shall make no attempt to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. They shall not enter village of Digras until the trial is over. Application disposed of. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp