1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1345 OF 2009 Vimlabai Damodar Bandavane .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mr.Niranjan Mundargi for the applicant. Mr.J.P.Yagnik A.P.P. for the State. Mr.Nitin Pradhan i/b Mrs.S.D.Khot for the original complainant. Coram : D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 14TH JULY, 2009 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.22 of 2009 of Deolali Camp Police Station, District Nashik. The crime has been registered against the applicant and five others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 306, 420, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. 3. There was transaction between the husband of the complainant i.e. the deceased – Sakharam Navale and the applicant in respect of two pieces of land, namely, Gat No.360 2 admeasuring 59 Ares and Gat No.382 admeasuring 90 Ares. Insofar as the transaction in respect of Gat No.360 is concerned, it was complete. In respect of Gat No.382 half of the amount was paid by the applicant to the husband of the complainant and he was expected to complete the transaction within a period of one month from 6.8.2007 i.e. on or before 6.9.2007. The applicant was put in possession of both the pieces of lands. Till filing of the complaint, admittedly, the transaction remained incomplete. 4. It appears that there was grape plantation done by the husband of the complainant which the applicant destroyed even before completion of the transaction. The destruction of the grape garden also caused huge loss to the complainant and her husband. Since the applicant was not completing the transaction, it appears that the husband of the complainant agreed to take his land back and had accordingly paid the entire consideration received by him at the time of execution of the agreement to sale. That amount was accepted by the applicant. Even after receiving the amount, he did not put the complainant and her husband in possession of Gat No.382. Having realised that he (the complainant’s husband) lost the land and the monies, he went in depression. There were several instances of threatening and abusing to the deceased. That all 3 ultimately drove him to commit suicide. There is no dispute that the applicant did not complete the transaction within the timeframe nor did he put the complainant and her husband in possession of the land even after receiving an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- paid by the complainant’s husband. Having considered the circumstances against which the husband of the complainant was driven to commit suicide I am not inclined to grant this application for anticipatory bail. Hence the application is rejected. While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. Application is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)