1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.3807 of 2008 (Haridas @ Bamdu Devidasrao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, through PSO, Dharni, Amravati) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Shri V.M. Deshpande, Advocate for Applicant. Shri D.P. Thakre, APP for State. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J. DATE : 25th November, 2008 This is an application by the husband, who was initially alleged to have abetted commission of suicide by his wife after having subjected her to cruelty punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code. The applicant was admitted to interim anticipatory bail by order dated 23-10-2008. Thereafter the prosecution has filed a reply opposing grant of anticipatory bail. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant/State. Merely because in the report filed by father-in-law it is mentioned that the applicant had treated the victim well till 2006, i.e. for almost eight years of marriage, it does not follow that further allegation of ill-treatment from 2006 onwards has 2 to be rejected at the stage of investigation itself. The report filed about 7 days after the incident is also not material, since it is just possible that after the parties come out of grief, they may wake up to the realities and file a report. Apart from all this, there is one more important point as to why bail ought to be refused. On 12-12-2008, the applicant's daughter Prachi, aged 6 years, made a statement before the police stating the manner in which the victim was led to death by the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant states first, that Prachi was in the custody of the applicant's father-in-law and, therefore, under his pressure, she could have been made a statement, which may be far from truth. These arguments may be reserved by the applicant for being advanced when the Sessions Court enters into the area of appreciation of evidence. Right now, there is a witness, who states that the applicant had administered poison to his wife. This should be enough to deny anticipatory bail to the applicant. The application is, therefore, rejected. Interim order passed by this Court on 23-10-2008 stands cancelled. JUDGE pdl