..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2841 OF 2008 1. Rajakka Bajrang Jadhav, 2. Manisha Bajarang Jadhav, 3. Bakula Bajrang Jadhav, & 4. Manjula Bajrang Jadhav. ..Applicants. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mr.K.S.Patil, Adv. for applicants. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 21st August, 2008. DATED : 21st August, 2008. DATED : 21st August, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.290 of 2008 of Vishram Baug Police Station. The said case is mainly under Sections 498-A, 306 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The applicant No.1 is the mother-in-law of deceased Pallavi and rest of the applicants are ..(2).. sisters-in-law of Pallavi. In the FIR it is stated that the husband of Pallavi was demanding Rs.5 lakh to Rs.6 lakh from the father of Pallavi. So also the present applicants though they were not residing at Pune, they used to come to Pune and used to tell Pallavi to get Rs.5 lakh from her father. They also threatened her that if the money was not brought, she would face dire consequences. All the applicants also told Pallavi that even if she dies, it would make no difference to the applicants and that they would get her husband remarried. In the FIR, it is clearly stated that all the applicants used to beat, ill-treat and harass Pallavi on account of the demand. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicants were not residing at Pune with Pallavi and her husband, but, they were residing at Sangli. Even assuming that the applicants were residing at Sangli, in the FIR it is stated that the applicants used to visit Pune often and they used to demand that Pallavi should brought Rs.5 lakh from her parents and as the ..(3).. demand was not met, Pallavi was beaten, ill-treated and harassed by the applicants. In view of these facts, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. Application for anticipatory bail is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)