1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3132 OF 2010 1. Sau. Namrata w/o. Vipul Jain, Age 28 yrs., Occu. Household, R/o. Rudreshwar Nagar, House No. 2610, Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaoon. 2. Ku. Rupali d/o. Ramesh Jain, Age 25 yrs., Occu. Household, R/o. Jain Lane, Pimpalgaon Hareshwar, Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon. ....Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent. Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for applicants. Mr. V.G. Shelke, A.P.P. for respondent. CORAM: V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATED: 25th August, 2010. PER COURT : 1. By this application, the applicants seek anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C. 2. Applicants alleged that deceased Pratibha and her husband Rahul were residing separately in house No. 2611 whereas they were residing separately in another adjacent house No. 2610. They submit that they are unconcerned with the alleged matrimonial cruelty meted out to 2 Pratibha and have not abetted the incident of the cruelty. They apprehend their arrest without any substantial reason and seek anticipatory bail. 3. Brother of deceased Pratibha lodged F.I.R., alleging that deceased Pratibha was being subjected to matrimonial cruelty by the applicants and other relatives of her husband. It is alleged that the husband and other relatives including the applicants used to tease deceased Pratibha as she could not give birth to any child. They used to tell her that they were not honoured by giving gifts and more dowry in the marriage. They were asking for Rs. five lakhs. The marriage was performed on 11.6.2009. It is alleged that on 19.7.2010 she had received extensive burns in the residential house. She was being rushed to the hospital, when the information was received by her brother. Her brother immediately went to the Civil Hospital and noticed that said Pratibha had died due to burning. He immediately lodged the F.I.R. because he gathered that the husband and other relatives of her husband had taken Pratibha to hospital in burning condition with a view to immediately perform the final rites. 4. On perusal of the investigation papers and after hearing counsel for the parties and learned A.P.P., it is amply clear that deceased Pratibha and her husband were residing in a house bearing No. 2611 situated on plot No. 30. The recitals of the panchanama dated 19th of July 2010 3 would show that the deceased and her husband were residing in northern portion of the house whereas in southern portion her brother- in-law by name Vipul Jain along with his family members was residing. It does not appear that they were residing in separate houses. What appears is that they were residing in the same house, but in separate parts thereof. The ghastly incident occurred within about one year and one month of the marriage. In the meanwhile, she had resided with her parents for about 3-4 months. The F.I.R. purports to show that deceased Pratibha was being treated with matrimonial cruelty. The names of the applicants are shown in the F.I.R. as the abettors. It is stated in the F.I.R. that they used to tease deceased Pratibha by calling her "Vanzoti" (infertile). Considering the fact that within short span of matrimonial life deceased Pratibha died in the matrimonial home under unnatural circumstances and that the applicants have named in the F.I.R., it is difficult to say that they are absolutely unconcerned with the commission of the offence. The matter is under investigation. No substance appears to infer that the applicants are innocent and are being falsely implicated in the alleged crime. Under these circumstances, the application is dismissed. [ V.R.KINGAONKAR, J.] ssc/ca3132.10