{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 266 OF 2010 1. Subhash s/o Dodhu Bhandarkar Age-60 years, Occ-Agril R/o Gayatri Colony, Amalner Dist-Jalgaon 2. Abhijit s/o Subhash Bhandarkar Age-35 years, Occ-AGril R/o Gayatri Colony, Amalner Dist-Jalgaon 3. Anil s/o Shankar Wani Age-40 years, Occ-Service R/o Wadi Chowk, Amalner Dist-Jalgaon APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, City Police Station, Jalgaon 2. The District Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.R.N.Dhorde h/f Mr.P.S.Dighe, Advocate for applicants Mrs.Yogita M.Kshirsagar, APP for respondent State Mr.V.D.Sapkal, Advocate for original complainant ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 21st January 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicants have {2} approached this Court for their release on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.2/2010 registered with City Police Station, Jalgaon for an offence punishable u/s 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 3 (2) (v) of the Atrocities Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by the submissions of learned APP and learned counsel for the original complainant. Also perused the papers of investigation. 3. Admittedly, the incident has occurred on 5 th January 2010 at Jalgaon where the deceased Mahendra has allegedly consumed poison, which has resulted into his death. At the time of the alleged incident, one Kundan was present there who has intimated the said incident to the complainant, who is brother of the deceased. Said Kundan has also informed that when Mahendra was taken to a hospital, one suicidal note is recovered by the doctor, who has treated him. This suicidal note is placed on record. 4. Learned counsel for applicants has urged that the services of the applicant were terminated in the month of April 2008, however, as per the contention of the original complainant, the services of the deceased were terminated in the month of September 2008. It is not disputed that the alleged incident took place after 17 months of September 2008. It is also alleged that the deceased had paid Rs.50,000/- to the applicants for obtaining job {3} and when he demanded refund of the same, he was harassed by the applicants. 5. It is not disputed that at the time of the alleged incident, the applicants were not present at the spot at Jalgaon, but they were at Amalner. In the premise, it has to be considered whether the applicants can be held responsible for the suicide committed by the deceased, as alleged in the complaint. 6. Relying on the judgment reported in 2005 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 513, it is urged on behalf of the original complainant that considering the importance and the relevancy of the suicidal note, which is recovered from the person of the deceased, custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary. Learned APP has also supported this contention. While considering the suicidal note, the contents of the same also needs to be taken into account. Even considering the contents of the suicidal note, there appears no allegations of harassment soon before 5th January 2010 when the deceased consumed poison. So far as harassment on the count of abusing in the name of his caste are concerned, as alleged in the complaint, the suicidal note is silent on this aspect. In the premise, if the services of the deceased were terminated in the month of April 2008 or even September 2008 and the alleged incident took place in the month of January 2010, the termination of service and the suicide of the deceased cannot be linked to hold that the applicants have abated or instigated the deceased to commit the {4} suicide and hence they are responsible for his death. So far as demand of refund of amount is concerned that matter can be investigated in due course. However, considering these aspects, of the matter, the ruling cited by the learned counsel for the applicant is not relevant in the present case. 7. Considering all these aspects, the allegations and the investigation carried out till today, at least at this stage, the applicants cannot be held responsible for the suicide committed by the deceased. In the premise, fit case to exercise discretion u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. 8. In the result, the application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with CR No.2/2010, registered with City Police Station, Jalgaon, they be released on bail on their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each and on executing PR bonds in the like amount. Applicants are directed to attend the concerned police station on every Friday between 3 and 5 p.m. till completion of the investigation. The applicants are further directed not to leave the local jurisdiction of the concerned police station without previous permission, in writing, from the IO concerned. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln266-10 {5} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.340 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 266 OF 2010 Narendra Dagadu Sonwane APPLICANT VERSUS Subhash Dodhu Bhandarkar & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.V.D.Sapkal, Advocate for applicants MrR.N.Dhorde h/f Mr.P.S.Dighe, Advocate for original accused Mrs.Yogita M.Kshirsagar, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 21 st January 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Issue notice to respondents. Mr.Dhorde, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and learned APP accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.4. 2. By this application, the applicant has prayed to allow him to address the Court for opposing criminal application No. 266/2010 for which learned counsel for respondents have no objection. In the premise, application is allowed in terms of prayer clause “B” to the application. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln266-10