1 criapln2046-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2046 OF 2011 1] Syed Yakub Ali Syed Mushtaque Ali 2] Ashfaque Ahmed s/o Shafi Ahmed .. APPLICANTS Vs 1] The State of Maha. 2] The Police Commissioner .. RESPONDENETS ... Shri M.S.Choudhari,Adv. for applicants. Shri G.R.Ingole,APP for R-State. ... CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2064 OF 2011 Wasimbegum w/o Rizwan Khan .. APPLICANT VS 1] The State of Maha. 2] The Police Commissioner 3] Syed Yakub Ali Syed Mushtaque Ali 4] Ashfaque Ahmed s/o Shafi Ahmed .. RESPONDENTS ... Shri R.R.Shaikh,Adv.for applicant Shri G.R.Ingole, A.P.P. for State Shri M.S.Choudhari,Adv.for R.3 & 4. ... CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE,J. DATE : 20/06/2011 ORAL ORDER: 2 criapln2046-11 1] The first application is filed for anticipatory bail and the second application is filed by original complainant for permission to assist the A.P.P. One advocate is appointed by original complainant. He is allowed to assist A.P.P. Papers of investigation were made available by A.P.P. Both sides are heard. 2] Crime No.110/2011 is registered with Kranti Chowk police station, Aurangabad for offences punishable under sections 306, 323, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. on the basis of report given by widow of deceased Rizwan Khan. She has made allegations that her husband had taken loan from 3 persons like Riyaz and the 2 applicants of the first proceeding. She has contended that the loan was taken 8 months prior to the date of incident and the applicants and third accused were harassing her husband for the recovery of the amount given to her husband. She has contended that 15 days prior to the date of incident, her husband had disclosed to her that all the 3 accused had given beating to him as he had not returned the loan amount. She has contended that the accused were giving threat on phone to her husband and so her husband was under tension. Her husband consumed poison on 14/3/2011 and report came to be given on 18/3/11. On 30/3/11, Sessions Court granted anticipatory to third accused Riyaz. 3 criapln2046-11 3] In the report given by widow of deceased, no specific amount is mentioned. A.P.P. submitted that statement of witnesses are recorded and the papers of investigation show that amount of Rs.1.2 lacs was taken as loan by deceased. The order of Sessions Court however, shows that the amount of Rs.5000/- was taken by way of loan by deceased from the accused persons. In any case, widow has not mentioned specific amount in the report. The report is filed on the basis of so called disclosures made by her husband to her. Statements of the witnesses are also on the basis of so called disclosure made by the deceased to them. The advocate of the applicant submitted that no loan at all was given by the applicant to the deceased and they are falsely implicated. The A.P.P. and the advocate for original complainant was asked to show record in respect of the transaction but there is no such record and it was submitted that it was only hand loan. In view of the nature of the offence viz. u/s 306 of I.P.C. and aforesaid circumstances, this Court holds that it is fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The case of present applicants is not different than the case of the third accused Riyaz to whom anticipatory bail is granted by Sessions Court. 4] Interim relief granted in favour of the applicants is confirmed. [T.V.NALAWADE,J.] 4 criapln2046-11 umg/criapln2046-11