1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.990 OF 2010 Latabai Jagannath Patil ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.P. Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant Shri P.P. More, A.P.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2 ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 25th March, 2010. ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard both the learned respective counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail apprehending her arrest in connection with C.R. No.30/2010, registered at Dharangaon Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that, the complaint was registered on the 2 report lodged by the complainant Sumanbai Bhadu Patil on 8.2.2010 in respect of the incident occurred on 7.2.2010. The contents of F.I.R. categorically state that there were disputes between the deceased and accused persons including the applicant on the issue of water of well and the accused persons used to always give threats to deceased to commit his murder. Hence, the mother of deceased has lodged complaint against the accused on 16.1.2010, 18.1.2010 and also on 6.2.2010. Even on the basis of report dated 6.2.2010 chapter proceeding was registered against the accused and the alleged incident occurred on the very next day i.e. on 7.2.2010. As regards the occurrence of the very incident, the complainant has specifically stated in the F.I.R. that Jagannath Patil, his wife (i.e. applicant herein namely Latabai Jagannath Patil) and her son and both sons of sister had assembled in the field and they caught-hold of the son of the complainant namely Barku and made him flat on ground and administered some substance into his mouth by bottle and ultimately said Barku expired on 8.2.2010 and opinion regarding cause of death is pending chemical analysis. However, the statements of complainant and other witnesses disclose that smell of poisonous substance was coming from the mouth of the victim. 4. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the investigation is under progress and same has not been completed and, 3 therefore, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for further progress in the investigation in constructive manner and, therefore, present application deserves to be rejected. 5. In the result, present application being sans merits, stands dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.)