1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.131 OF 2010 1. Sayyed Abdul Raheman @ Raju S/o.Bahoddin Kadri, Age-34 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Kharadi, Pune-14 2. Sayyed Gohar S/o.Bahoddin Kadri, Age-32 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Beed Byepass Saara Parisar, Aurangabad 3. Sayyed Imran S/o.Bahoddin Kadri, Age-27 years, Occu-Education, R/o.Neknur Taluka and Dist. Beed. APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, 2. Superintendent of Police, Beed. RESPONDENTS Mr.Joydeep Chatterjee, learned counsel for applicants. Mr.B.J.Sonwane, learned APP for respondent State. Mr.S.A.Nagargoje h/f.Mr.M.S.Bhosale, learned counsel for original complainant. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 27/01/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicants have approached 2 this Court for their release on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.139/2009, registered in Neknur Police Station of Dist. Beed. For the alleged offence u/s. 498-A, 304- B, 306, 34 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for State and also counsel for original complainant, who is assisting to learned APP. Also perused the papers the papers of investigation till carried out. 3. From the submissions across the bar, it appears that the said complaint came to be lodged about the incident occurred in the afternoon of 14/12/2009 on the complaint of father of victim by name Sayyed Aaftap. The name of the victim is Aayesha. It is not under dispute that the marriage of said Aayesha took place with Sayyed Kadari of Neknur. Even though there are allegations of demand of dowry, against the husband and his relatives, the fact require to be considered that the alleged incident took place after 2 years of marriage of victim at Yelamb. The documents produced on record indicate that applicant no.1 and 2 are not residing at Yelamb either on 13/12/2009 or on 14/12/2009. The documents produced further shows that the 3rd applicant even if residing at Ahmedpur, but he is residing separately from the family of the husband of deceased. In this light, on perusal of the complaint, it discloses that the allegations against these applicants who are not residing at the place where the incident took place are vague and sweeping 3 allegations. They do not disclose that either they were present soon before the incident or during the close period before the incident occurred. If it is so, even though it is vehemently urged that it is a case of dowry death and it is under investigation, no bail to be granted, but considering the fact that the statement of witnesses as well as the facts disclosed in the complaint nowhere disclosed that these applicants were present soon before the incident or within the short span of occurrence of incident, in the premise, case is made out to use the discretion u/s. 439 of The Cr.P.C. Application is liable to be allowed and hence order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Interim protection granted on 19/01/2010 is hereby confirmed and to remain in force till filing of the charge sheet. 3. Applicant to give attendance to Neknoor Police Station if required on the written requisition by the Investigation Officer concerned investigating this offence. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JAN 2010/cri.appl.131-10