1 APPLN.: 352/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.352 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra .... Applicant Vs. Mr. Muralilal Gupta & 2 Ors. .... Respondents Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for State-applicant. Mr. Ashish Sawant i/by Mr. M.S. Mohite for respondents. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 7th July, 2011 P.C. 1. This application is filed by the State for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondents. The original complainant has entered appearance in the application, his Counsel Mr. Sawant has addressed the Court to support the application by the State. 2. The incident in this case is the unfortunate incident of one Nidhi Gupta, a Chartered Accountant, jumping to her death from 19th floor of the building in which she resided along with her two children Mahika and Gaurav. All the three had died on the spot. Initially, Dindoshi Police has registered A.D. No.25, 26 and 27/2011 of 2 APPLN.: 352/2011 Cr.P.C. In respect of death of her children, C.R. No.89 of 2011 for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was registered against deceased Nidhi. Three days later, father of deceased-Nidhi lodged complaint against her husband, father-in- law, mother-in-law and wife of brother-in-law. On the basis of that complaint, offence vide C.R. No.95 of 2011, under Sections 306, 498-A read with 34 Indian Penal Code came to be registered at Dindoshi Police Station. Immediately thereafter the respondents filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. The applications were allowed by the Sessions Court and anticipatory bail granted by the order dated 16th March 2011. The factors which had weighed with the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail are that there is delay of three days in filing the complaint by the father of Nidhi. The allegations made in the F.I.R. fall short of making of such a case as would require presence of the respondents for custodial interrogation. Nidhi was an independent woman, both financially and otherwise. She was Chartered Accountant and director of a company. She was the honourary Professor. She also carried on business in shares. On this background, the incidents of harassment mentioned, separated by substantial length of time, do not appear to be grave enough to drive a person to take such an extreme step. 3 APPLN.: 352/2011 F.I.R. does not indicate any single, grave, recent incident but discloses minor dis-agreements or complaints in the family. Complaints consisted of inadequate space in the house, shifting of family from Surat to Malad and delayed communication as regards the birth of the children to the parents of Nidhi. The Sessions Court found that none of the incidents mentioned in the F.I.R. can be said to be of such gravity as to lead a person to commit suicide. The Sessions Court observed that though one does feel sorry for the tragic end of Nidhi and two children, the record does not prima facie disclose that the respondents abetted her in committing suicide. The observations of the learned Sessions Judge are completely justified. Besides, the record shows that Nidhi was in regular communication not only with her parents, but also other relatives and the employees of her father. 3. Mrs. Mulekar, learned APP submits that the Police have since recorded further statements which statements were not available before the Sessions Court. She tenders copies of statements dated 11th March 2011, 16th March 2011, 17th March 2011, 2nd April 2011 (3 statements), 7th April 2011 and 21st April 2011. All these statements with exception of one i.e. the statement of Shri Suresh Gokulchand Sarda recorded on 7th April 2011 repeat the same allegations as in 4 APPLN.: 352/2011 the F.I.R.. There are no new facts stated threin. Therefore they are not of any relevance for the present purposes. Suresh Sarda, is an employee of father of Nidhi. He discloses in his statement that Nidhi had called him up in connection with the business of shares before the incident. At that time, she had mentioned that her husband, father-in-law and brother-in- law were asking her to get a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from her father, but she had flatly refused. This statement even if taken at it s face value would only mean ’ that there was a request made for financial help to Nidhi and she had turned it down. The very fact that she had turned down the request would mean that she was not under any pressure or influence of the respondents. In these circumstances, there is no case made out for cancellation of anticipatory bail. There are also no allegations of abuse of the liberty granted or breach of any terms and conditions of the order. Hence, the application is rejected. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)