1 Cri-A-804-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 804 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant (Orig. complainant) Vs. Bhaskarrao Appasaheb Phatangare & Ors. ... Respondents Mrs. G.P.Mulekar, APP, for the applicant - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 22nd February, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned APP. 2. Crime No.291/2009 was registered at Nigadi Police Station under Sections 498A, 304B, 306, 323, 504, 506 read with Sec. 34 of IPC on the report lodged by one Vikrant Nirmal, who is brother of the deceased Rupali. According to him, Rupali was married to accused Deepak Phatangare on 7.5.2008. At the time of marriage, he had spent Rs.10 lakh and had also given gold ornaments of 30 tolas to her. However, after the marriage, she was complaining about the ill- treatment by in-laws. On 22.11.2009, her husband lodged a missing report and on the same day, her dead body was found in a pond. As per the post-mortem report, 2 Cri-A-804-10.sxw she had died due to drowning. 3. The respondents, who are in-laws of the deceased, made an application for anticipatory bail. According to them, she was suffering from some mental disorder and was also taking treatment from a doctor long before this incident. According to them, there was never any demand from them. In fact, they are willing to return whatever ornaments were given to her at the time of marriage by her brother. After looking to all the facts and circumstances, by an order dated 3.12.2009, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the respondents with direction that they shall attend the police station on every Wednesday and Saturday till completion of investigation and shall also fully co- operate in the investigation. The anticipatory bail was liable to be cancelled in case of any breach of condition. 4. The learned APP points out that ornaments have not been returned so far. In fact, the Sessions Court had noted that the respondents had offered to return all the ornaments but the investigating officer had refused to accept that. In these circumstances, merely because the ornaments are not seized by the police officer, anticipatory bail cannot be cancelled. There is no explanation as to why investigation could not be completed for more than a year and why charge-sheet is 3 Cri-A-804-10.sxw not filed so far. The learned APP informed that now investigation has been referred to the C.I.D. There is no allegation that there was any breach of condition of the anticipatory bail. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere. 5. In the result, the Application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)