1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.687 OF 2011 (SK. AMIN SK. MEHBOOB //VS// STATE OF MAH. THR. PS. MAHAGAON, YAVATMAL) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Aditya Patil-Mane, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. V.A.Thakre, A.P.P. for Respondent. CORAM : M.N.GILANI, J. DATE : DECEMBER 12, 2011. Heard both sides. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing the applicant- accused No.2 on bail against whom offence bearing Crime No.131 of 2011 is registered with Police Station, Mahagaon for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 304-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. One Parveen Begum married to Sheikh Iqbal Sheikh Ameen- original accused No.1 in the month of May, 0211. At the time of marriage dowry in the form of gold was given. After one month of the marriage Parveen was subjected to cruelty by her husband-accused No.1 and her in laws. Before the incident deceased Parveen Begam had come to her parents and complained to her father that accused No.1 and her in laws were making demand for more amount. The father of Parveen Begum and one intervener went to the matrimonial home of Parveen with Rs.Forty Thousand. The in-laws were not satisfied with this amount since demand was of about Rs.Two Lacs. Father of Parveen Begum was threatened that if the balance amount was not arranged within thirty days they would not keep Parveen Begum in 2 their house. On 20.09.2011 Parveen Begum consumed poison and died. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in paragraph 9 of his order observed that : “All these circumstances constrained me to say that death of the deceased is caused otherwise than in normal circumstances within period of four to five months from her marriage and she was harassed soon before her death for the demand of money. I have already mentioned that alongwith husband of the deceased, present applicant was also having intention for harassing deceased and thereby her death is caused. All these circumstances constrained me to say that submission made by Shri Mane, advocate on behalf of the applicant, cannot be accepted. ....... The death of newly married lady had taken place within four to five months of her marriage. All these circumstances constrained me to say that the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage particularly when the investigation is under progress.” Considering the role attributed to the present applicant, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in rejecting the bail application of the applicant at this stage, that means impending filing of the chargesheet. In that light of the matter, I do not find any merit in this application. The application is rejected with liberty to move the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, after submission of the chargesheet. JUDGE RR..