1 BA-1856-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURTE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1856 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 721 OF 2011 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1856 OF 2011 1. Shri Bipracharan Sahu ) 2. Smt. Suhasini Bipracharan Sahu ).. Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 721 OF 2011 Bipracharan Sahu .. Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondents And Ishwar Kashinath Panigrahi .. Intervener Shri M.S.Mohite,Advocate, for the applicant. Smt. R.V.Newton, APP, for the respondent-State. Shri Prashant Aher, Advocate, for the Intervener. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 16th December,2011. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2 BA-1856-11.sxw 2. Application No.721 of 2011 is filed by the first informant and father of the deceased to intervene and to oppose the bail application filed by the accused. In the interest of justice, the application to intervene is allowed and stands disposed of. 3. The applicants seek to be released on bail in Crime No.210 of 2011 registered with Kolsewadi Police Station, Kalyan, District Thane, under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. As per the FIR, deceased Rupali daughter of first informant Ishwar Panigrahi was married to accused No.1 Anilkumar Sahu in February,2010. At the time of marriage, as per the customs, her parents gave certain ornaments and other articles to her as well as to the son-in-law. For about one month she was treated well. However, thereafter her husband and mother-in-law allegedly asked her to bring amount of Rs.1 lakh from parents. As this demand was not satisfied, she was being abused and harassed. On one day, Rupali informed her parents telephonically about the ill-treatment and therefore on 27.1.2011 her parents went to her husband’s house. They tried to convince her husband and mother-in-law against any demand, but they were not willing to hear anything. Therefore, her 3 BA-1856-11.sxw father took her to his house and thus from 27.1.2011 she was living with her parents. On 9.11.2011, they received a notice from the Civil Court about filing of divorce petition by the husband. On 11.11.2011, her father and mother went to Mumbai to consult a lawyer in the matter. At about 8.30 p.m., they returned home and found that Rupali had committed suicide by hanging herself. Accordingly, report was lodged on 13.11.2011. 4. The applicant No.1 is father-in-law and applicant No.2 mother-in-law of deceased. The FIR clearly shows that from 27.1.2011 till 11.11.2011 when she committed suicide, she was living at her parents’ place and, therefore, during that period there could not be any cruel treatment at the hands of husband or her in- laws. Merely filing a petition for divorce cannot be treated as an act of cruelty. 5. In view of the above, the applicants be released on their executing P.R. of Rs.10,000/- each with a surety in the like amount with condition that they shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)