1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.901 OF 2011 Harishankar Ambikaprasad Singh & .Applicants & ors V/s. Incharge of Silvassa Police .Respondents Station & anr. Mr.V.V.Purwant with Mr.V.N.Shingnapurkar, Advocate, for the Applicants Mr.D.A.Nalawade, PP, for Respondent No.1 Mr.K.V.Saste, Advocate, for Respondent No.2  State Mr.Sudeep Pasbola, Advocate, for the original complainant CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 9TH NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail by parents-in-law & brother-in-law of victim Nilam, who is alleged to have been 2 murdered by strangulation on 25th August, 2011. The victim's brother gave a report that the victim was possibly kidnapped along with her son Abhishek and possibly they might have been murdered. The police went to the applicants' residence but found none there. The dead body was found in an Innova car at village Kathar, District Jaunpur (U.P.) about three days after the incident. The investigating machinery has so far collected material to show that the victim died as a result of Asphyxia due to ante mortem strangulation. Rather than having re- course to police, it is alleged that applicant No.1 tried to secure the Death Certificate from Thane Civil Hospital and caused the dead body to be taken in an Innova car has been arrested. Strangulation itself has been alleged to have been carried out by applicant No.2. Applicant No.3 is supposed to have met the driver at a square in Thane and is supposed to have covered up the dead body in an Innova car by placing 3 suit cases on it so that it could not be noticed in its journey to Jaunpur (U.P.). The learned counsel for the applicants submits that first, there is absolutely no evidence so far collected about the applicants' complicity in murder. He states that material collected would at worst indicate complicity of the applicants in offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code which is bailable. He submits that applicant No.1 or applicant No.3 were not shown to be at Silvassa when murder was committed. Therefore, according to him, there is no need to subject applicants to custodial interrogation. 3. As rightly pointed out by the learned PP for Union Territory of Silvassa, the complicity of applicant No.2 in actual strangulation is already indicated to the investigating officer and conduct of the applicant Nos.2 & 3 shows that not just there is an association with the crime after it was 4 committed but their being a part of the conspiracy to commit murder and to dispose of the dead body. Since investigation in the matter is in progress, considering the nature of allegations made, applicants are not entitled to anticipatory bail. 4. Criminal Application stands rejected. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)