( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3466 OF 2010 Uttamrao s/o Madhavrao Wankhede, R/o Palaspur, Tq. Himayatnagar, District Nanded APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT .... Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 11th October, 2010] PER COURT : 1. This is an application for bail. 2. The applicant is arrested in connection with crime No. 33/2010, registered at Himayatnagar Police Station, for the offence punishable under section 304-B read with section 34 of the I.P. Code. 3. The applicant is father-in-law of deceased Gayabai @ Savita. The marriage between deceased Gayabai @ Savita and son of the applicant by name Vijay was performed on 25th ( 2 ) April, 2006. The prosecution alleges that she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty on account of non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 50,000/-. Her father had made a complaint to the President of Tanta-Mukti Samiti of the village prior to the incident. He had also paid a part of the amount to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- and had requested the husband of deceased to treat her well. Allegedly, on 8th April, 2010, the deceased and her husband attended marriage of her brother and at that time also, he had beaten up her. The incident occurred on 17th April, 2010 in the matrimonial house. She died of extensive burns in the matrimonial home. 4. Heard learned advocate and learned A.P.P. Perused the investigation papers which were temporarily made available during the course of hearing. 5. What appears from the investigation papers is that there are general allegations against the applicant about the alleged matrimonial cruelty. The fact that deceased was found to bear extensive burns in the matrimonial home, prima facie, indicates that her death was under the suspicious and un- natural circumstances. Still, however, there are specific allegations against her husband in respect of his act of ( 3 ) abusing and beating her on prior occasion. So far as the applicant is concerned, there is no specific role attributed to him. The applicant is roped in on basis of hearsay information and because of his being member of the family of the husband of the deceased. Considering these aspects, the application deserves to be allowed. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds in sum of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand), with one solvent surety in the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Court of Sessions. He shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not contact any of the prosecution witnesses. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3466-2010 ( 4 )