(1) CRI. APLN. 4526.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4526 OF 2010 1. Shivaji Ganpat Jagtap Age : 55 years, Occu.: Agri., 2. Mathurabai w/o Shivaji Jagtap, Age : 50 years, Occu.: Household 3. Ashok S/o Shivaji Jagtap, Age : 26 years, Occu.: Agri., All R/o Kopare, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahamadnagar 4. Bhagirath S/o Motilal Pawar, Age : 38 years, Occu.: Agri., R/o Wanjulpoi, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahamadnagar APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served upon GP High Court Bench at Aurangabad) RESPONDENT ..... Mrs. Sadhana S. Jadhav, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for the respondent/State. ..... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 30TH NOVEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. This is an Application for anticipatory bail. (2) CRI. APLN. 4526.2010 2. One Yuraj Jagtap, who was the son of informant Smt. Narmada Jagtap, allegedly committed suicide by hanging himself to the roof of the residential house, in the noon of 18th October, 2010. It is alleged that the suicide was committed as a result of continuous harassment, trouble and torture caused by the applicant-Shivaji Jagtap. It appears that there was a civil dispute regarding sale transaction in respect of the land which was purportedly transferred by the husband of the complainant-Smt.Narmada. According to the informant, her husband was in drunken condition when the sale transaction was effected. The transfer was effected on basis of returning of the land if amount of Rs.1 Lakh would have been returned. It was a money lending transaction. The complainant further alleged that the land was being cultivated by her but the applicant-Shivaji Jagtap used to continuously trouble and harass her family members. The suicide was committed by Yuraj as a result of such harassment. 3. Upon hearing learned Advocate for the applicants and learned A.P.P. and on perusal of the (3) CRI. APLN. 4526.2010 investigation papers, it appears that the so-called money lending transaction was between Raosaheb Bhanudas Jagtap and the father of the deceased. It appears from the suicide note left by deceased Yuraj that the main allegation is against the applicant no.2-Mathurabai and said Raosaheb Jagtap. It is stated in the suicide note that the applicant no.2 and said Raosaheb Jagtap used to instigate the father of deceased Yuraj and used to pick up quarrels with the other family members. They had assaulted his sister and manipulated certain revenue entries. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicants would submit that the applicants no.1 and 3 were falsely involved in Sessions case no. 158 of 2008 and were harassed on earlier occasion but they were acquitted by the Sessions Court and therefore another attempt is made to implicate them falsely. 5. At this juncture, it is difficult to decide whether the allegations are false and concocted or bear ring of truth. Considering the purport of suicide note left by deceased Yuraj, the involvement of the applicant no.2-Mathurabai is prima facie (4) CRI. APLN. 4526.2010 explicit and, therefore, she is not entitled to discretionary relief. So far as the other applicants are concerned, there are only vague allegations in the suicide note about their involvement and probably they are not the active participants in the alleged instances of the harassment and continuous trouble given to deceased Yuraj and his family members on account of the dispute over the land. 6. In the result, the Application is partly allowed only to the extent of the applicant nos. 1, 3 and 4 and they are directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds in sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand) each, with a surety bond each in the like sum, before the Arresting Officer in the event of their arrest. The Application of the applicant no.2-Mathurabai is however dismissed. Ad- interim protection granted to her stands revoked and declamped. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp