( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4030 OF 2010 Prabhakar Venkoba Kale & others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT .... Mr. V.D. Salunke, advocate for the applicants. Mrs. B.R. Khekale, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 11th October, 2010] PER COURT : 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Heard learned advocate for the applicants. He would submit that deceased Sushila and her husband were residing separately and that all the applicants have been roped in by father of the deceased merely on account of suspicion. He would further submit that the FIR is lodged after considerable delay and, therefore, perhaps, it was outcome of deliberations and consultation. He would submit, therefore, that the applicants are likely to be humiliated due to the arrest and ( 2 ) as such, deserve anticipatory bail. 3. The learned APP points out from the FIR that there are clear allegations about telephonic communication on mobile phone of Prabhakar Bawle, who is nephew of the complainant, which was used by the deceased on 13th September, 2010 i.e. a day before her death alleging that she was being much troubled by the applicants and her husband. She had informed her cousin that she shall be taken back on next day because she was insecured. Her father was planning to take her back on next day to his house, but came to know about the fact that she had committed suicide by hanging herself in the residential house. 4. The averments in the FIR prima facie show that after eight (8) months of the marriage, deceased Sushila was being subjected to matrimonial cruelty in the matrimonial house. The FIR does not show that she and her husband were residing separately nor there is tangible material to infer their separate residence. It is alleged in the FIR that she was being taunted by saying that she was of black complexion and that her father had not paid remaining dowry of Rs. 10,000/-. She was being teased and taunted by calling her `wanzoti' (infertile). There is also prima facie material to ( 3 ) infer that she had contacted her cousin a day before the incident and had narrated about excessive trouble given by the applicants and her husband and, therefore, she had urged him to take her back to house of the father. At this juncture, it cannot be said that the applicants are likely to be arrested without any reason or rhyme. In this view of the matter, the application is dismissed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln4030-10