1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1670 OF 2010 Narayan Bhimrao Gotamwad & ors. ...Applicants VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ..... Shri V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the applicants Shri D.V. Tele, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 6th May, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. V.D. Gunale, learned counsel for the applicant Nos.1 to 4 as well as heard Mr. D.V. Tele, learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant Nos.1 to 4, seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest under C.R. No.47/2010, registered at Kandhar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that, the offence has been registered on the 2 complaint of Sambhaji Ramchandra Ramanbainwad on 3.4.2010. The complainant is the father of victim Mahadabai, who married with Bhanudas about 20 years back. The contents of complaint disclose that there was quarrel between victim Mahadabai, applicants and her brother-in-law namely Tanaji about two months back prior to occurrence of the incident, on account of partition of house, and during the said quarrel, Mahadabai was assaulted by the applicants and co-accused, and thereby her front two teeth were broken. The contents of complaint further disclose that, thereafter the complainant received telephone call on 2.3.2010 that his daughter Mahadabai is expired and, therefore, he rushed the matrimonial home of Mahadabai and found her dead body, and it appears that, she was strangulated. The contents of said complaint further disclose the names of the applicants and co-accused Tanaji, who subjected Mahadabai to extreme cruelty and thereby she was fed up and she committed suicide by hanging herself. 4. On perusal of the investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that, names of the applicant Nos.1 to 4 have been reflected in the F.I.R. and specific allegations have been made against them therein, and, therefore, there is no possibility of false implication of the applicant Nos.1 to 4 in the alleged offence. 3 5. Moreover, during the course of investigation, statements of witnesses have been recorded and the statement of Hanumant Bhanudas Gautamwar, aged about 15 years, who is the son of victim, categorically connects the applicant Nos.1 to 4 to the alleged crime. Moreover, the post mortem notes of deceased Mahadabai discloses the cause of death as, “From the post mortem examination done on the said body and internal examination, in my opinion, the most probable cause of death of the deceased is due to the asphyxia likely due to the strangulation.” and the said cause of death disclosed in the post mortem notes of deceased Mahadabai strengthens the suspicion against the applicant Nos.1 to 4 herein as reflected in the statement of Hanumant i.e. son of the victim. 6. The investigation is under progress and the accusations made against the applicant Nos.1 to 4 are of serious nature and considering the nature and gravity thereof, the custodial interrogation of the applicant Nos.1 to 4 is necessary for the further progress in the investigation in proper perspective and, therefore, this is not a fit case to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hence, present application deserves to be rejected. 7. In the result, present application being sans merits, 4 stands dismissed. 8. Needless to say that the above observations are prima facie in nature and shall not come in way of any Court while deciding the matter on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE) JUDGE fmp/cri167010