IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1905 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1905 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1905 OF 2008 1. Shri Ganesh Babasaheb Palve, 2. Shri Babasaheb Uttamrao Palve, 3. Sou Indumati Babasaheb Palve, 4. Sou Pratibha Deepak Dhakne, 5. Shri Deepak Popatrao Dhakne. ... Applicants. V/s. 1. The State of Maharashtra, 2. Shubhangi Ganesh Palve. ... Respondents. M.S.Mohite for the applicants. Ms.A.T.Zaveri, A.P.P. for respondent No.1- State. Rahul Kate for respondent No.2. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 27th June 2008. DATED: 27th June 2008. DATED: 27th June 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. By this s application filed under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants are seeking anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest in connection with C.R.No.99/2008 registered with Daund Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 307 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No.2- Smt.Shubhangi Palve. 3. After having heard rival parties for some time, learned counsel for the applicants makes a statement that so far as applicant Nos.1, 2 and 3 are concerned, he does not want to press this application on their behalf. 4. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the applicant, this application stands rejected rejected rejected so far as applicant Nos.1, 2 and 3 applicant Nos.1, 2 and 3 applicant Nos.1, 2 and 3 are concerned. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants further makes a statement that applicant Nos.1, 2 and 3 will appear before the trial Court by Monday, i.e. 30th June, 2008 and obtain regular bail. The statement made in this behalf is taken on record. 6. So far as applicant Nos.4 and 5 are concerned, learned counsel for the applicants pressed this application and prayed for pre-arrest bail in favour of applicant Nos.4 and 5. - 3 - 7. The applicant No.4 is sister-in-law of the complainant and applicant No.5 is husband of applicant No.4. Both of them are not the residents of Daund where the alleged incident had taken place. They are residents of Pathardi, district- Ahmednagar. The invitation card at annexure-D, prima facie; shows that on 22nd May, 2008, there was some religious function in their family. Therefore, possibility of their presence at the time of alleged incident is, prima facie, remote. They are ready to co-operate with the investigating agency. 8. In the above view of the matter, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail in favour of applicant Nos.4 and 5, subject to the following conditions: (a) In the event of arrest of the applicant Nos.4 and 5 in connection with connection with C.R.No.99/2008 registered with Daund Police Station, Pune, they shall be released on bail of Rs.25,000/- each with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. (b) The applicant Nos.4 and 5 are directed - 4 - to report to concerned Police Station as when called and shall co-operate with the investigating agency. (c) The applicant Nos.4 and 5 shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement or threat or pressurise any prosecution witnesses and shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence. (d) This order of anticipatory bail shall operate till the filing of the charge-sheet. After filing of charge-sheet, it would be open for the applicants to apply for regular bail before regular court. (e) It is needless to mention that breach of any of the conditions by the applicants shall result in cancellation of bail. 9. Application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE