1 CRI.APP.NO. 2044/2009. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2044 OF 2009. 1. Gulabrao s/o Narayan Pondhar. 2. Sow.Kusumbai w/o Gulabrao Pondhare. ...Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mr.S.S.Rathi,Advocate for the applicants. Mrs.S.B.Wadmare,APP for the respondent. Mr.M.P.Kale, Advocate for original complainant to assist the prosecution. .... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 13th July, 2009. COURT’S ORDER: 1. The applicants are seeking bail in crime No. 49/2009, registered at Aundha Nagnath Police Station, Dist. Hingoli, dated 28th May, 2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 304-B, 498-A 2 CRI.APP.NO. 2044/2009. r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The deceased was married to the applicant's son on 19th April, 2009. It is alleged that within eight days from the date of wedding the applicant and other in-laws started demanding Rs.10,000/- for a colour T.V. to the deceased. She made report of this demand to her parents by making telephone call. She also informed them that she was being harassed, abused and humiliated over such demands and other aspects, by her in-laws. The complainant, father of the deceased, stated that the other accused namely the husband of the deceased had demanded to him Rs.10,000/- for purchasing the colour T.V. The deceased died due to drowning in a well on 27th of May, 2009 i.e. within few days from her wedding. The applicants are parents-in-law of the deceased. They are in custody since 28th of May, 2009. 3. Shri Rathi, learned Advocate for the applicants invited my attention to the fact that after the dead body of the deceased was located in the well, it was reported as accidental death. He said, after completion of inquiry under accidental death case, the dead body was disposed of and after such disposal, rather belatedly, the present complaint came to be filed. He also pointed out that the well in question has no parapet wall and he, therefore, 3 CRI.APP.NO. 2044/2009. suggested that the death of the deceased could be accidental. 4. The material against the applicants is only through the FIR and similar statements of the relatives of the deceased. The prosecution has so far not recorded the statements of neighbours in support of their case. In my view, the prosecution case as against the applicants is not strong enough to refuse them bail. The application is allowed. i) The applicants are released on bail of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand only) each, with one surety in the like amount each. ii) Mr.M.P.Kale, learned Advocate is permitted to assist the prosecution on behalf of the original complainant. Application No.2322/2009 stands disposed of. (A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) lkp