1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1090 OF 2010 Vithal s/o Jagannath Chavan & anr. ... APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri A.M. Gaikwad, Advocate for applicants Shri K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for respondents ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 6th April, 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard Mr. A.M. Gaikwad, learned counsel for the applicants as well as heard Mr. K.S. Patil, learned A.P.P. for the respondents. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant Nos.1 and 2, seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest in C.R. No.9/2010, registered at Mukramabad Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. At the outset, it is to be noted that the interim protection 2 was granted to the applicants by order dated 24.3.2010 and it is in force till this date. 4. It appears that, offence has been registered on the complaint lodged by one Parshuram Rathod i.e. father of victim Sunita on 25.2.2010 in respect of the alleged incident occurred on 24.2.2010, wherein it is alleged that the daughter of the complainant namely Sunita married with one Parshuram Chavan about 10 years back, but she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and his family members, including the applicants herein, on unlawful demand of Rs.50, 000/- to be brought by her from her parental house for the purchase of autorikshaw and also unlawful demand of Rs.40,000/- to be brought by her from her parental house for the house repairs and ultimately she was fed up with the said cruelty and ill-treatment and committed suicide on 24.2.2010 by consuming poisonous substance. 5. On the aforesaid background, the learned counsel for the applicants urged that, the marriage of deceased Sunita took place with Parshuram Chavan about 10 years back and the applicants are the steps brothers of her husband, who are residing separately, and relied upon the certificate to that effect, which is produced at Exhibit D. The learned counsel for the applicants also canvassed that, the deceased Sunita was blessed with two sons and one daughter out of the wedlock with Parshuram Chavan and 3 marriage took place about 10 years back and, therefore, presumption under Section 113-A of Evidence Act is not in favour of the prosecution. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the applicants that, F.I.R. does not spell out any specific role in respect of the applicants and there are general and omnibus allegations against the applicants, which do not connect the applicants with the crime. it is also canvassed that applicant No.2 is a B.A. student and prosecuting his studies at Udgir and it is also canvassed that, both the applicants are young persons, aged about 22 years and 20 years respectively and have been falsely implicated in the present offence. 6. The learned A.P.P. opposed the present application vehemently and submitted that the inquest panchanama discloses the external injuries on the body of the victim Sunita. It is also canvassed that the investigation is still under progress and same has not been completed and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicants is necessary. 7. On perusal of the investigation papers and after considering the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, at the outset, the marriage of victim took place with Parshuram Chavan about 10 years back and she was blessed with two sons and one daughter out of the said wedlock and, therefore, apparently, the presumption under Section 113-A of Evidence Act 4 is not in favour of the prosecution. Apart from that, on perusal of the contents of the F.I.R., it appears that, there are general omnibus allegations against the applicants and no specific role has been attributed to them. Moreover, sight cannot be lost of the aspect that the applicants are residing separately from the deceased and her husband Parshuram Chavan and the said aspect has been substantiated by the certificate produced by the applicants at Exhibit D. Moreover, the applicants are step brothers of victim's husband namely Parshuram Chavan and accordingly, they are distantly related with him and not directly. 8. Besides that, as regards the injuries on the dead body of victim Sunita, disclosed in the inquest panchanama, it is material to note that the clause No.17 of post mortem notes do not disclose any external injuries. and, therefore, the injuries disclosed on the dead body of the victim disclosed in the inquest panchanama will not be of any aid and assistance to the case of prosecution. Besides that, it also cannot be ignored that the applicant No.2 is a B.A. student, who is prosecuting his studies at Udgir. 9. In the circumstances, I am of the view that there is no necessity of custodial interrogation of the applicants and interim protection granted in favour of the applicants is required to be confirmed and present application deserves to be allowed. 5 10. In the result, present application is allowed and interim protection granted in favour of applicants on 24.3.2010 stands confirmed and it is directed that, in the event of arrest of the applicant Nos.1 and 2 under C.R. No.9/2010, registered at Mukramabad Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, they be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each and on executing P.R. bonds in the like amount by each of them, on the condition that they shall attend the concerned police station as and when required and shall cooperate in the investigation and they shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not influence upon the witnesses directly/ indirectly. 11. Needless to say that the observations made in this order are prima facie in nature and shall not come in way of any Court while deciding the matter on merits. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) fmp/cri1090.10