1 4885.10-aba bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO.4885 OF 2010 Arif Shaikh & Anr. ..Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.Murtaza Najmi i/b. Ms.Shabnam Shaikh for Applicants. Mrs.S.D.Shinde, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : MARCH 18, 2011 P.C. :- 1. Heard rival submissions of the parties on this application for anticipatory bail preferred by the applicants apprehending their arrest in the matter of C.R.No.369 No. 2010 registered with the Mumbra Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Section 498, 406 r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Reportedly, other co-accused i.e. relatives of the applicants were granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. However, the application of the present applicants was rejected. Being aggrieved thereby, the present application for anticipatory bail has been preferred by the present applicants. The applicants are husband and brother-in-law of the original complainant- wife. 2 4885.10-aba 3. Apparently, the main allegations against applicant No.1 – husband is that prior to marriage, he had assured the complainant, the then would be wife, that after their marriage they will stay in another premises of MHADA and that he will arrange for the separate accommodation. However, after marriage, no such separate accommodation was made available by him and as such apparently, it amounts to criminal breach of trust. 4. Another allegation against applicant No.1 is that he had taken the ornaments i.e. Stridhan from his wife – original complainant and her father and applicant No.1 had pledged the said ornaments and obtained a sum of Rs.68,000/- and odd and out of said funds, a separate accommodation on leave and licence basis was taken by father of original complainant for separate residence of the couple for Rs.50,000/- and an amount of Rs.18,000/- was utilised by father of complainant for marriage of his another daughter. 5. So far as the allegation against applicant No.2 is concerned, he allegedly had spread insecticide for eradication of cockroaches from the house and immediately asked the complainant to clean the room and due to suffocation caused by such insecticides there was mis-carriage of the original complainant. This incident happened about two years prior to lodging of the complaint which is lodged on 24th August, 2010. 6. During the course of argument, it is submitted on behalf of the applicants that in the newly taken premises on leave and licence basis by expending an amount of Rs.50,000/- as mentioned above, complainant did not agree to stay and as such she left the matrimonial house. It is also alleged that few relatives of the complainant had been to the house of the applicants and asked applicant No.1 to sign certain divorce papers. 3 4885.10-aba 7. All of the same, considering the above situation, in the opinion of this Court, custodial interrogation of the present applicants is not warranted. Hence, the following order is passed: ORDER a) Application is allowed. b) In the event of arrest of applicant in C.R.No. 369 of 2010 registered with the Mumbai Police Station, Mumbai, the applicants shall be released on bail on their executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each with one surety for the like amount. In the event of such arrest and availing bail, the applicants shall attend the concerned Police Station on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon till filing of charge sheet and shall cooperate with the Investigating Agency. c) Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.R. JOSHI, J.)