{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3609 OF 2009 Ambadas Vitthalrao Sontakke, Age-51 years, Occ-SErvice R/o Jalna, Tq & Dist-Jalna APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.K.N.Lokhande, Advocate for the applicant Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 4th November 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant, accused in CR No.166/09 registered at Kadim Police Station, Jalna, u/s 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, by one Janardhan Parsuram Bansod on 22.09.2009, prayed for release him on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the arguments of learned APP. 3. Learned APP made available the record of investigation {2} for my perusal. It appears that though the offence is registered u/s 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, yet, admittedly, there was no wedlock between the deceased and the applicant. Hence, apparently, section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be made applicable to the present case. 4. An interim protection is granted by this Court to the applicant on 15.10.2009 that in the event of his arrest he be released bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/-. Learned APP has contended that inspite of directions being given by this Court to the applicant to attend the police station on every alternate day from the date of the interim order till today, yet though applicant has attended the police station, however he is not cooperating with the investigating agency and not answering properly to the queries of the investigating officer and therefore, no independent witnesses are coming forth to give statements and, hence, he opposed the application. 5. It is clear from the prosecution story that the deceased and the applicant, though were cohabiting for last more than 19 years, yet there was no wedlock between them. The applicant and the deceased have begotten a son from their illicit relationship, who is 16 years of age now and was residing with them. In such circumstances it cannot be said that because of non cooperation of the applicant there is no progress in the investigation. Admittedly, the deceased died due to suicide and not natural or homicidal {3} death. Considering these aspects, there is no substance in the submissions of the learned APP that due to non cooperation of the applicant, the investigation has not progressed. In the premise, the interim relief granted earlier, needs to be extended by granting anticipatory bail for a limited period. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing a PR bond in the like amount. This protection is granted to the applicant for a period of 4 weeks only. Thereafter, the applicant has to apply for regular bail, if he so desires. 7. It is hereby clarified that the observations made in this order are prima facie and the Sessions Court to decide the application, if filed by applicant for regular bail, on its own merits uninfluenced by these observations. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3609-09