( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3062 OF 2010 1. Hanmant s/o. Popat Bagal .. Applicants Age. 23 years, Occ. Agri., 2. Malan w/o. Popat Bagal Age. 23 years, Occ. Agri., 3. Popat s/o. Eknath Bagal Age. 23 years, Occ. Agri., 4. Balu s/o. Popat Bagal Age. 23 years, Occ. Agri., All R/o. Karpadi, Tal. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mrs. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. V.G. Shelke, A.P.P. for the respondent. Mr. A.S. More, Advocate for the complainant. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 23.08.2010 ( 2 ) P.C. :- 1. This is an application filed under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No. 96 of 2010 registered at Karjat Police Station for offence punishable under sections 306, 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The applicants are parents-in-law, husband and brother-in-law of deceased Manjushri. It is disputed that marriage of deceased Manjushri with applicant No.1 Hanumant was performed on 29th November, 2009. She died due to drowning in a well in the agricultural land of the applicants on 27th May, 2010. The F.I.R. was lodged by her father on 7th June, 2010. In the F.I.R., her father (complainant) alleged that an amount of Rs. 51,000/- was settled as dowry and an amount of Rs. 41,000/- out of that amount was paid at the time of marriage; whereas remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- was to be paid subsequently. He alleged that applicant Nos. 1 to 3 were demanding remaining dowry amount from said ( 3 ) Manjushri. He further alleged that the applicants were saying that her parents had not honoured them and that she shall bring Rs. 10,000/- as well as more Rs. 50,000/- required for laying down pipe-line in the agricultural land. She was subjected to cruelty on account of failure to meet unlawful demand. On 27th May, 2010, he learnt by telephonic communication received from applicant No.4 Balu that said Manjushri had fallen in the well. He and his wife along with other relatives went to the village of the applicants. According to the complainant, dead body of said Manjushri was blazed on fire and who was found half burnt. He alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and therefore she had committed suicide by jumping in the well. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.P.P., learned counsel for the intervenor/ complainant and on going through the relevant investigation papers, it is amply clear that the F.I.R. was lodged after a considerable delay. It is true that mere delay by itself may not be a ground to assume innocence of the applicants. At the same time, conduct of the parties is required to be duly appreciated in order to find out prima facie case. The ( 4 ) F.I.R. itself shows that on the very same day, applicant No. 4 communicated to the complainant that Manjushri had fallen in the well. It was obvious, therefore, that the complainant had opportunity to verify the fact situation after visiting the village of the applicants and if he had any serious doubts then to immediately inform Police Patil or the concerned police officer. The statements which were recorded after the registration of the belated F.I.R. appears to be of stereo-type and are of the relatives of the complainant. Those statements do make omnibus allegations about the matrimonial cruelty. The only adverse conduct which can be gathered is that the applicants did not immediately give any report to the police and the post-mortem of the dead body was not conducted. The matter is under investigation. The spot panchanama was drawn on 08.06.2010 i.e. next day after the F.I.R. was registered. The spot panchanama purports to show that the well is of 2 ft. diameter. It appears that there is no parapet wall to the well and the same is surrounded by the agricultural lands and a way. It is shown in the spot panchanama that a pair of sleeper was found floating in the water of the well. No article was, however, seized from the nearby place. ( 5 ) 5. Considering the nature of evidence collected by the investigating agency and the conduct of the complainant, particularly, the delay caused in lodging F.I.R. and omnibus averments made therein, the applicants deserve liberty. It appears that the apprehension in the minds of the applicants is well founded and they are likely to be unnecessarily harassed due to arrest in connection with alleged crime. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that the investigation would proceed properly and for such purpose their interrogation is required to be facilitated. Taking overall view of the matter, following order will meet ends of justice. 6. The applicants be released on bail in the event of their arrest on furnishing of bail bonds in sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) each along with a surety body in the like sum besides personal bond, to be executed before the Arresting Officer, on the condition that the applicants shall remain present before the Investigating Officer, on each Saturday and Tuesday for four weeks and will co-operate the Investigating Officer during period of ( 6 ) investigation. If any tangible and incriminating evidence is found against the applicants or any of them during investigation, the prosecution will be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the anticipatory bail order. 7. The application is disposed of. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2010/AUG10/cra3062.10