1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.591 OF 2010 Punam Dipak Parkhe, Age-22 years, Occu-Household, R/o.Pravaranagar, Taluka Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Inspector, Police Station, Loni, Taluka Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar 2. The Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar RESPONDENTS Mr.P.B.Vikhe Patil, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 24/02/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for her release on anticipatory bail, in the event of her arrest in connection with RTC No.106/2009, on the file of J.M.F.C. Rahata for the alleged offence punishable u/s. 307 r/w. 34 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, followed by the 2 submissions of learned APP for State. Also perused the papers of investigation. 3. It appears that this is an exceptional occasion where the mother in law has lodged complaint against her daughter in law, who is residing at the residence of her parents at Pravaranagar, at the distance of 10 km away from her house at Babhaleshwar that in the night of 25/03/2009, when she was sleeping outside the house, at that time, this applicant i.e. her daughter in law came there alongwith her mother, brother and sister, poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. On hearing her cries for help, her sons and husband got up, but within meantime, the daughter in law ran away in the rickshaw, which was standing by road, but not chessed, and the complaint was also lodged after the span of 2 months. There is un-explained delay in lodging the complaint. Mere statement that no cognizance was taken by the police, hence private complaint was lodged after the span of 2 months, can not be believed on 3 grounds, first when the male members are present there, they have not tried to chess this applicant and her relatives, second, no immediate complaint was lodged with police or on failure to take the cognizance, no private complaint was lodged, and when lodged after 60 days, within meantime, the entire evidence might have brushed out and lastly the treatment was given without registering the offence when this is a clear cut MLC case, if believed. All these circumstances shows that false implication of applicant can not be rulled out. In the premise. order : 3 O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. The order of interim protection granted on 10/02/2010 to continue till the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed if any. 3. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/FEB 2010/cri-appl-591-10