1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3795 OF 2011 Kasabai w/o Himatrao Gavhane, age 60 years, occ. Household, r/o Mhalsapur, Tq. Sengaon, District Hingoli ...Applicant VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, through P.S.Sengaon ...Respondent ..... Shri S.M.Godsay, advocate for applicant Smt. R.K.Ladda, A.P.P. for respondent Shri B.S.Kudale, advocate for original complainant ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 16th September, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Perused the investigation papers which were made available for perusal purpose and heard learned counsel for the parties finally. 2 This is an application preferred by the applicant 2 seeking anticipatory bail apprehending her arrest under C.R. No. 68 of 2011, registered at Sengaon police station, District Hingoli, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 498-A, 323, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 It appears that the crime has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by victim herself, namely Mrs. Sharda Gavhane on 3.8.2011 in respect of the occurrence of the incident at about 6.00 a.m. on the same day. It is alleged therein that the complainant married with Bhagwat Gavhane in the year 2006 and out of the said wedlock, one daughter was born. There are allegations that the complainant’s husband and the applicant, who is the mother-in-law of the victim, illtreated her. It is also alleged that unlawful demand of Rs.1,00,000/- was made from the complainant to be brought by her from her parental house and she was subjected to physical as well as mental cruelty due to non-fulfillment thereof. The said complaint further recites that since the victim was not feeling well, she visited her parental house and stayed there for about eight days and returned to her matrimonial home on 2.8.2011. Thereafter, on 3.8.2011 at about 6.00 a.m. when she was doing domestic work in the house, the 3 applicant and her husband asked the complainant why she did not bring money from her parental house in spite of repeated reminders and thereafter they assaulted her. Moreover, the applicant herein poured rockel can on the person of the victim and caught hold of her both the hands, whereas her husband brought match stick from the match box and set her ablazed. Thereafter the victim shouted and ran out of the house and the neighbourers poured water on her person and extinguished the fire and removed her to the hospital for medical treatment. 4 The contents of the complaint lodged by the victim herself are self-explanatory and reflect the name of the applicant herein categorically and specific role has been attributed to her in the occurrence of the incident that she assaulted the victim and poured rockel on the person of the victim from the can and caught hold of her both the hands, and therefore, there is prima facie case against the applicant herein. Moreover, it is submitted that the applicant was not traceable and was not available for investigation purpose and said aspect cannot be overlooked. 5 Having the comprehensive view of the matter and 4 considering the accusations made against the applicant and the nature and gravity thereof, custodial interrogation of the applicant is inevitable for further progress in the investigation in constructive manner, and hence, present application deserves to be rejected. 6 In the result, present application lacks merits and same is dismissed . 7 The present application stands disposed of finally. 8 It is made clear that the above observations are prima facie in nature and shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap3795.11