..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2780 OF 2008 1. Abida Bapusaheb Maldar, & 2. Asif Iqbal Bapusaheb Maldar. ..Applicants. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.Amit Sale, Adv. for the applicants. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 14th August, 2008. DATED : 14th August, 2008. DATED : 14th August, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.94 of 2008 of Rajarampuri Police Station, Kolhapur. The said case is under Sections 498(A), 304(B), 306 r/w. 34 of IPC. 3. The complainant is the mother of deceased Surayya. Surayya was found dead in her matrimonial house with ligature mark around her neck. Applicant No.1 was the mother-in-law of ..(2).. Surayya and applicant No.2 is the brother of husband of Surayya. The complainant has stated that Surayya used to inform her that both the applicants used to taunt and ill-treat Surayya on the ground that she had not conceived. Various instances have been stated in the complaint by the complainant. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that there was no demand by any of the accused persons. On perusal of Section 498(A) of IPC, it is seen that it is not necessary that there has to be any demand and that the ill-treatment and harassment has to be pursuant to any demand. Section 498(A) IPC also visualize ill-treatment and harassment at the hands of the accused persons which is not necessarily related to demand. Hence I find no merit in this submission. The learned Advocate for the applicants further submitted that applicant No.2 was studying at Bangalore, and hence there was no occasion for applicant No.2 to ill-treat or harass Surayya. Even assuming that applicant No.2 was residing at Bangalore, specific instances have been stated in respect of applicant No.2 in the ..(3).. complaint. Even assuming that applicant No.2 was studying at Bangalore, he would come back to the house of his parents from time to time. 5. Thereafter the learned Advocate submitted that applicant No.1 is a lady and hence anticipatory bail be granted to her. In the FIR the names of the applicants have been specifically stated. Instances of ill-treatment by both the applicants have been stated in the FIR. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has not made any allegations against the father-in-law of Surayya or the husband of Surayya and only allegations are made against the applicants who are mother-in-law and brother-in-law of Surayya. 6. Looking to the averments made in the FIR, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. 7. At the request of learned Advocate for the applicants, time to surrender is granted upto 21st August, 2008. ..(4).. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)