MP 1 ABA532_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 532 OF 2011 Mr. Ravindra Pratap Rambali Singh ... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 5TH OCTOBER 2011 Mr. Ram Pandey, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Y. S. Shinde, APP for the Respondent State. P. C. : Heard. The applicant, who is accused No.1 in Crime No. 134 of 2011 registered with Samta Nagar Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that the deceased Preeti was married to the present applicant on 28.05.2006 and her parents had given her certain ornaments and articles as Stridhan. They had also given certain gold chains, silver ring, watch and cash of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry to the applicant. However, the applicant was not satisfied and he asked his wife to bring further amount of Rs. 20,000/- but that demand could not be satisfied. Because of this reason, she was also sent back to her parents' place in April 2007. The applicant had also addressed a letter to his mother-in-law Rita Devi making demand of certain valuable articles which could not be fulfilled. It is contended that after that also the applicant continued to treat his wife with cruelty, and finally on 29.01.2011, she committed suicide by hanging herself. The report of the incident was lodged on 24.04.2011 i.e. about three months after the incident. The applicant contends that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The post-mortem report shows that she had died due to asphyxia due to hanging. The death had occurred within five years after the marriage and there are serious allegations about the demand of MP 2 ABA532_11 money and cruel treatment. It is true that there is a delay in lodging the report. But inspite of that, case has to be properly investigated, particularly in the light of the facts noted above and the alleged letter written by the applicant to his mother- in-law. The parents of the applicant, who are also accused, were arrested and they have been granted bail. It appears that the applicant is avoiding the arrest for last about five months. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 3. It may be noted that the present applicant had made certain allegations against the Investigating Officer, Police Inspector Ms. Narote of Samata Nagar Police Station and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while rejecting the application for anticipatory bail of the applicant, by order dated 16.06.2011, had directed that for the purpose of smooth investigation in proper direction, it is desirable that Investigating Officer should be changed. Therefore, the Additional Sessions Judge had also directed the applicant to surrender before the Commissioner of Police within forty-eight hours and not before the said Investigating Officer. The learned APP concedes that the Investigating Officer has not been changed so far. 4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the application for anticipatory bail stands rejected. The applicant shall surrender before the Commissioner of Police on 8th October 2011 at 11.00 a.m. The Commissioner of Police shall see that the investigation of the case is handed over to some other police officer before that. 5. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (J. H. BHATIA, J)