... 1 ... IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4492 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO.4492 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO.4492 OF 2005 Tukaram Laxman Jambale & Ors. ...Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Shri. Abhinandan B.Vagyani for the Applicants. Shri. K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : JULY 22, 2005. : JULY 22, 2005. : JULY 22, 2005. P.C.: 1. Offence alleged against the Applicants and co-accused Shivaji is under sections 304-B, 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The co-accused Shivaji is the accused No.1 who is the husband of the deceased. The Applicant Nos.1 and 2 herein are parents of the husband and the Applicant No.3 is the sister. F.I.R. is filed by the father of the deceased. The marriage between deceased and said Shivaji was solemnized on 5th May, 1998. The allegation is that on 18th April, 2005, the wife of the accused No.1 committed suicide. The victim suffered burn injuries and as a result of burn injuries she expired. In the F.I.R. the specific allegation of harassing the deceased and the demand of dowry is made only against the accused No.1 Shivaji. In fact, the father of deceased has stated that the Applicant Nos.1 and 2 were also fed up with the conduct of their son Shivaji. After making specific allegations against the husband/accused No.1 very general allegation is made against the Applicants. ... 2 ... 2. The learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that investigation is complete and chargesheet has been filed. He submitted that no specific role is ascribed to the Applicants and therefore, they are entitled to be enlarged on bail. The learned A.P.P. submitted that statements of some of neigbours have been recorded who have described that certain demands were made by the Applicants with the deceased and the Applicants were illtreating the deceased. 3. I have considered the submissions. The learned Judge while rejecting the Application made by the Applicants after filing of chargesheet has noted that in the first bail application, the Applicant No.1 claimed to be more than eighty years old and in the second application his age was mentioned as sixty eight years. The learned Judge noted that different ages of the Applicant Nos.1 and 2 have been mentioned. 3. Perusal of the F.I.R. shows that specific allegation of the father of the deceased was only against the husband of the deceased and not against the Applicants. In the later part of the statement of the complainant, only general allegations have been made against the Applicants. It is true that some of the witnesses have tried to implicate the Applicants by stating that they were harassing the deceased. ... 3 ... Now, the chargesheet has been filed. The Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are women. Age of the Applicant No.1 appears to be certainly above sixty. If clear allegations are made against only against the husband of the deceased, there is no rason why the Applicants against whom the complainant has not chosen to make any specific allegation should not be enlarged on bail. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : i) The Applicants shall be enlarged on bail in connection with C.R. No.32 of 2005 of Gadhinglaj Police Station, District Kolhapur, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount. ii) The Bail is granted subject to condition that till conclusion of the trial, the Applicants will report to the concerned Police Station once in a week. iii) The Bail is granted subject to condition that the Applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement or threat to any prosecution witnesses and shall not in any manner tamper with prosecution evidence. iv) The Applicants shall co-operate with the learned Trial Judge for expeditious disposal of the ... 4 ... trial. Any attempt by the Applicant to delay the trial may be a ground for cancellation of bail. v) Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. vi) Application is disposed of in the above terms. vii) The parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE