{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4027 OF 2009 1. Vyankatrao s/o Dattatraye Bamne Age-40 years, Occ-Agriculture R/o Ibrahimpur, Tq-Degloor, Dist-Nanded 2. Dattatraya s/o Raghunath Bamne Age-62 years, Occ-Agriculture R/o Ibrahimpur, Tq-Degloor Dist-Nanded APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, Police Station, Degloor, 2. The Superintendent of Police Nanded, Dist-Nanded RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.V.D.Salunke, Advocate for applicants Mrs.Yogita M.Kshirsagar, APP for the State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 2nd December 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicants have prayed to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with CR No.166/2009 registered with Degloor, Police Station for an offence punishable u/s 306 r/w 34 of the IPC and u/s 3 (1) (vi) (x) of the Atrocities Act. {2} 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by the submissions of the learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation, carried out till today. 3. It appears that the offence came to be registered by one Shobhabai Chandu Bhaypure in respect of an incident occurred at 8.00 a.m. at the residential premises of the complainant on 10th November 2009. Perusal of complaint does not disclose any abuse to the complainant or her husband in the name of her caste at the hands of the persons who are arrayed as accused, to make out an offence under the Atrocities Act. It appears that a letter was addressed to the JMFC, Degloor on 13th November 2009 wherein it is informed by the PSI, Degloor that some abuses, in the name of the caste of the complainant, have been uttered by the present applicants, however the letter is totally silent as to what were the utterances. 4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that bare perusal of the compliant does not disclose any offence under the Atrocities Act and secondly, even if the contents of the complaint are accepted in their entirety, then also they do not make out offence u/s 306 of the IPC, as to make out the offence u/s 306 of the IPC, ingredients of section 107 of the IPC also require to be satisfied, which are missing in the complaint. 5. It is urged by the learned APP that subsequent {3} statement of the complainant was recorded where she has alleged the utterances by the applicants in the name of her caste which certainly attract offence under the Atrocities Act. 6. It is clear that the FIR does not whisper any abuse in the name of caste to attract any offence under the Atrocities Act. If in a subsequent statement, recorded after a span of considerable time, any abuses are alleged, then it cannot be construed that something was missing when the complaint was lodged and subsequently the same was stated. The allegations in the complaint that some loan was obtained by the husband of the complainant from the applicants and it was told to him that if he would not not attend the work, he will have to repay the same, cannot be said as instigation to commit suicide. In the premise, case is made out to exercise the discretion to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail. 7. In the result, application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with CR No.166/2009, 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. The applicants to cooperate with the investigating agency. Application stands disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln4027-09