1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 1810 of 2010 Smt. Laxmibai @ Kosha Narayan Gaddappa (Gadappewar) and another ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., P.S., Bitargaon, Tah. Umarkhed, Dist. Yavatmal. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S.T.Harkare, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. P.V.Bhoyar, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J. DATED : 23 rd Novem ber , 2010 . Heard. This is an application filed by the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 33/2010 at police station, Bitergaon, Tah. Umarkhed for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 306, 34 of I.PC. By order dated 4/11/2010, ad- interim protection was granted to the applicants. As per the report dated 14/10/2010, lodged by the brother of deceased namely Anjarayya Narsayya Mahewar, the allegations of ill-treatment for demand of money at the hands of the applicants has been levelled and the aforesaid crime came to be registered against them. Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that applicants no.1 and 2 are mother-in-law and brother-in-law, respectively of victim/deceased Sujata. Learned Advocate further submitted that bare perusal of the report would show that a general and vague statement is made against all the in-laws of deceased Sujata. Learned Advocated submitted that the applicant is aged about 62 years and applicant no.2 is doing agricultural work and not residing with his brother and he is residing separately. He further submitted 2 that there is no material on record to connect the applicants with the said crime and therefore, the applicants are entitled for grant of bail. Per contra, learned APP for respondent-State has strongly opposed the application by filing the reply. He submitted that there is material collected by the investigating agency against the applicants. As per the prosecution case, initially for a period of one year, deceased Sujata was treated well by her in-laws. There was a demand of Rs. One lakh from the side of the in-laws. They started ill- treating the deceased on the ground that her parents have not paid the money after the birth of first daughter to the couple and thereafter on demand of Rs. One lakh for purchase of tractor. As deceased Sujata was constantly ill-treated for want of money, the father of deceased paid Rs.20,000/- and requested the in-laws to invest the amount in Fixed Deposit. Learned APP has invited my attention to the statements of the witnesses i.e. neighbours, in which it is stated that Sujata used to tell them about her plight. It is further stated in the statements that the in-laws of the deceased were not happy even after receipt of Rs.20,000/- and started demand of Rs.One lakh for purchasing the tractor. Therefore, father of deceased paid Rs. 50,000/- to the in-laws of deceased. As there was default in paying the installments, the in-laws including the present applicants again started ill-treating deceased Sujata and because of constant ill- treatment, harassment and mental pressure, Sujata committed suicide. In view of above, I find that though, applicant no.1 is claimed to be old aged, the investigating agency has collected strong material against the applicant no.1. In respect of applicant no.2, a specific stand is taken that the applicant no.2 is neither residing with his brother nor he is the member of the joint family. He is residing separately and doing agricultural work. It is also stated that as 3 applicant no.2 was not residing with the brother, there was no question of giving any ill-treatment or any torture to the deceased. The said fact is not controverted by the State in reply. In view of specific stand taken for applicant no.2 and there is no material produced to connect applicant no.2 with the crime. In the circumstances, in view of specific material available against the applicant no.1, I am inclined to partly allow the application. In the result, the application is partly allowed. The application against applicant no.1 is rejected. The interim protection granted to applicant no.2 – Vijay Narayan Gadappa (Gadappewar) by this Court vide order dated 04/11/2010 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions with the following conditions : a] The applicant No.2 Vijay to cooperate with the investigating agency and attend the police station, Bitargaon, Tal. Umarkhed, Dist. Yavatmal as and when called by the police. b] The applicant Vijay shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor commit any act such as contacting the prosecution witnesses or pressurize them. c] The applicant to submit his residential address and his contact numbers such as phone/mobile numbers to the investigating agency. d] In case the applicant Vijay is moving out of the area of police station, Bitargaon, he shall inform the police station about his visit to other place. In case of breach of these conditions, the prosecution agency to take necessary steps in accordance with the provisions of law. JUDGE Diwale