( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3355 OF 2010 1. Sahebrao Mahadu Patil 2. Latabai Sahebrao Patil Both r/o Boris, Tq. and District Dhule. 3. Ujawala Bhausaheb Patil, R/o Balsane, Tq. Sakri, District Dhule. APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3331 OF 2010 Bhausaheb Sahebrao Patil APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT .... Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, advocate for the applicants in both the applications. Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 24th August, 2010] PER COURT : 1. These are applications for anticipatory bail and regular bail. The applicants in criminal application No. 3355/2010 are the inlaws and sister-in-laws of deceased ( 2 ) Deepali whereas applicant in criminal application No. 3331/2010 is her brother-in-law. The latter has been arrested and is seeking regular bail whereas the others are seeking bail in anticipation of arrest. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.P.P. 3. I have gone through the investigation papers, which were temporarily made available during course of hearing of the applications, 4. It appears that deceased Deepali was married to Pappu alias Balwant, on 11th April, 2009. She delivered a female child on 1st April, 2010. At the time of alleged incident, the female child, by name Raksha, was hardly of three (3) months age. It is explicit that on 31st July, 2010, deceased Deepali committed suicide after administering poisonous substance to her minor female child i.e. Raksha. Both of them died due to poisoning. They were rushed to Civil Hospital, but were declared dead in the same noon. 5. The material gathered during the investigation prima ( 3 ) facie purports to show that deceased Deepali used to inform her parents that she was being subjected to matrimonial cruelty on account of non-compliance of unlawful demand made by the applicants. They were asking her to fetch Rs. two (2) lacs from her parents. It appears prima facie from police statements of Smt. Nirona Gangadhar Patil and her son Prashant that such unlawful demand was being made by the applicants. Their version shows that deceased Deepali was being beaten up and she used to narrate her plight to them. It appears from version of Prashant that he had gone to house of the applicants after receiving information about the ill-treatment given to her. He was not, however, allowed to intervene and was ousted from the house. 6. There appears prima facie material to show that death of deceased Deepali alongwith her minor female child was under suspicious circumstances and within about one and half year of the marriage. 7. The investigation papers, however, do not show that the statement/s of neighbours supported the case of the prosecution. It appears from police statement of Sunandabai Deore that she noticed the incident. She found that Deepali ( 4 ) was lying in the house. She also noticed that whitish froth was emanating from the mouth of Deepali, so also the minor female child was lying nearby her. Her version purports to show that Deepali and the minor female child had been declared as dead at about 1.50 p.m. The inlaws of deceased Deepali or her husband did not give any report about the un-natural death of Deepali. 8. Considering the conduct of the applicants and the nature of the death of the married woman, it is difficult to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants in criminal application No. 3355/2010. For, allegedly, they were residing together with husband of Deepali and they were also indulging in the alleged matrimonial cruelty. So far as applicant Bhausaheb is concerned, he was arrested after the incident. His further presence is not necessary for any effective investigation. The statement of the witnesses have been recorded and the post-mortem report is also collected by the Investigating Officer. The complicity of the applicant – Bhausaheb is not specifically explicit and he appears to be residing separately in a rented house. There are omnibus accusations against him. In this view of the matter, applicant Bhausaheb is entitled to seek liberty. ( 5 ) 9. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, criminal application No. 3331/2010 is allowed and applicant – Bhausaheb Sahebrao Patil is directed to be released on bail on furnishing personal bonds in sum of Rs. 20,000/- alongwith one surety bond in the like sum. He shall attend the concerned Police Station on each Sunday for four (4) months, or till filing of the chargesheet whichever is earlier and shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer. The Criminal application No. 3355/2010 is dismissed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3355-3331-10