(1) CR.APP. 1770.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1770 OF 2009 1] Babarao S/o Harishchandra Kadam, Age : 54 years, Occu.: Agri. R/o Adegaon, Tq. Inchoda, Dist. Adilabad 2] Subhadrabai w/o Babarao Kadam, Age : 45 years, Occu.: Household, R/o Adegaon, Tq. Inchoda, Dist. Adilabad 3] Madhavrao S/o Ishwarrao Pawanekar (Patil), Age : 45 years, Occu.: Agri, R/o Pawana, Tq. Inchoda, Dist. Adilabad .. Applicants Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, Through : Police Station Bhokar, Dist. Nanded 2] The District Superintendent of Police, Nanded Dist. Nanded .. Respondents Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate h/f. Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate for the Applicants Smt. S.B. Wadmare, APP for the Respondent-State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 2ND JULY, 2009 ORAL ORDER:- 1] The applicants are seeking anticipatory (2) CR.APP. 1770.2009 bail in crime no. 65 of 2009 dated 21.4.2009 registered with Bhokar Police Station, Dist. Nanded for offences punishable under section 406, 420, 417, 506(2), 452, 323 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2] The facts mentioned in the FIR and revealed through the statements of various witnesses are quite peculiar and can be narrated as under:- . The complainant and the applicants settled the marriage between Suresh, the son of applicant nos. 1 and 2 and Megha, daughter of the complainant's sister sometime in April, 2008. On 16.5.2008, the engagement ceremony took place at village Matol, Tq. Bhokar, Dist. Nanded in presence of number of persons of the village. At that time the applicants demanded Rs.7 Lac and complainant paid such amount in cash to them for higher education etc. of the groom. This incident was seen by number of persons who were present for the ceremony. The applicants then assured the complainant that they would fix the date of wedding soon but somehow the date of wedding was not fixed even till Diwali, 2008. . It is the case of the prosecution that in December, 2008, when the complainant approached the applicants for expediting the matter, they declared that they would not accept the alliance and called (3) CR.APP. 1770.2009 off the wedding. The complainant therefore, demanded the amount which he had given to the applicants. The applicants assured him that they would return the amount within 2-3 months but in vein. Until April, 2009 it was not paid. On 21.4.2009, there occurred an incident between the parties over the amount not being paid. It is the case of the complainant that on that day, the applicants had come to his house at village Matul and when he demanded the amount, they got enraged and assaulted him. 3] The question is whether the applicants deserve anticipatory bail? I am inclined to release the applicant no.2 on anticipatory bail, because the complainant did not say in the FIR that he had handed over the amount to her. He said that the amount was handed over to the applicants nos. 1 and 3 and the groom Suresh. 4] The learned Advocate appearing for the applicants argued that the entire complaint is unbelievable. He said the complainant could not have paid the amount the day when the demand was made. It was a large amount and the complainant could not have arranged to pay the entire amount in cash on that day. But the complainant has explained this saying that few days prior to the incident, certain land was sold and the amount had come to the (4) CR.APP. 1770.2009 family. Besides, independent persons stated that they had seen the handing over of the amount on the day of engagement ceremony. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicants also brought to my notice that there was no question of demanding any amount for the purpose of the further education of the groom because Suresh had already acquired M.B.A. Degree in 2004 and that he was already working at Bangalore etc. This argument is not useful for the applicants because in our society the groom’s family demands and accepts huge amounts without assigning any reason and it is considered as dowry. Such practice is prevalent in our society and therefore the allegation cannot be brushed aside easily. Besides if such incident had taken place parties do not readily approach the Police authorities but try to settle the matter by engaging good offices of common relatives etc. Such incident would go to the Police only when a party does not agree to yield. It seems as a last resort, the complainant had approached the Police. The argument of the learned Advocate for the applicants that this was a false complaint to avoid returning of the gold ornaments presented to the bride, is also not acceptable because there is nothing on record to show that the applicants had presented gold ornaments to the bride at the time of the engagement ceremony or thereafter. The learned Advocate also pointed out that though the incident took place in May, 2008 the (5) CR.APP. 1770.2009 complaint was belatedly filed in April, 2009. I have discussed this aspect earlier. Generally, an issue of this nature does not go to the Police as the parties try to settle it out with the help of common relatives etc. The applicants nos. 1 and 3 do not deserve discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. 5] In the event of arrest of the applicant no.2 in this case, she shall be released on bail of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount. 6] The application is partly allowed in the above terms and stands disposed of. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp/2july9/cr1770.09