{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1605 OF 2010 Suryabhan s/o Mahadu Kachkure & anr. ... APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ....... Shri M.D. Shinde, Advocate for the applicants Shri P.P. More, A.P.P. for the respondent ....... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE. J. DATE: 7th May, 2010. PER COURT: 1. Heard Mr. M.D. Shinde, learned counsel for the applicants as well as heard Mr. P.P. More, learned A.P.P. for the respondent. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant Nos.1 and 2, seeking bail in connection with C.R. No.I-45/2010, registered at Chikalthana Police Station, Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code since the applicants were arrested thereunder on 26.3.2010 and are under {2} judicial custody presently. 3. It appears that, the offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by Pralhad Bapurao Pathade on 25.2.2010 i.e. the father of the victim namely Meena. It is alleged that, the marriage of Meena and Raghunath took place about two years back prior to 2.3.2010 and applicant Nos.1 and 2 are the father-in-law and mother- in-law of victim Meena respectively. The contents of F.I.R. categorically disclose that the victim Meena was initially treated well for one year, but thereafter she was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the applicants herein and even her fidelity was doubted, and the applicants allegedly assaulted her and the applicant No.1 was addicted to liquor and he used to abuse and ill-treat the victim Meena. It is also alleged that, the applicants herein once expelled victim Meena out of the matrimonial home and ultimately, on 24.3.2010, she committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance at her matrimonial home and expired on 25.3.2010 at Ghati Hospital, Aurangabad. 4. The allegations made against the applicant Nos.1 and 2 are of serious nature and the investigation is under progress and same has not been completed. The post mortem notes disclose that the viscera has been preserved for chemical analysis and same has {3} been sent to C.A. Office for examination purpose and opinion regarding cause of death has been reserved. Hence, in the light of the aforesaid facts, it is not desirable to enlarge the applicant Nos.1 and 2 on bail at least at this stage. 5. In the result, present application being sans merits, stands dismissed. 6. Needless to say that the above observations are prima facie in nature and shall not come in way of any Court while deciding the matter on merits. SHRIHARI P. DAVARE JUDGE fmp/cri1605.10