( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3880 OF 2010 1. Ashok Mahadu Deore 2. Sheela w/o Ashok Deore 3. Sagar Totaram Yashod, All r/o Kusumba Road, Malegaon, Dist. Nashik. 4. Vishal s/o Joseph Salave 5. Ashabai Joseph Salave, Both r/o Shriram Nagar, Malegoan, Dist. Nashik. APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT .... Mr. C.R. Deshpande, advocate for the applicants. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondents/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 21st October, 2010] PER COURT : 1. This is an application for bail. 2. The applicants are the husband and his relatives vis-a-vis deceased Sheetal. The marriage between the applicant No. 4 and deceased Sheetal was performed on 30th January, 2000. Out of the wedlock, she had given birth to a male child and a female child, by name, Nikhil alias Akash and ( 2 ) Rashmi, respectively. The FIR purports to show that after about six (6) months of the marriage, deceased Sheetal was taunted, teased and troubled by the husband and his relatives. She used to narrate her grievances to the parents during her visits to their house. About three (3) years prior to the incident, the informant (Sow. Surekha – mother) urged the applicants to send deceased Sheetal to her house because of illness of her mother-in-law. She was sent to house of the informant – mother, but after eight (8) days, when she was reached back to house of the applicants, they declined to allow her to maintain her and asked the informant to take her back to the maternal home. The informant (mother of deceased Sheetal) and others requested the applicants to give custody of the minor children, but the applicants declined to do so. Thereafter, Sheetal was brought back to house of her parents at Dhule from Malegaon. Abut a week prior to the incident of the suicide of Sheetal, she had gone out of the parents’ house under the pretext that she was going go visit house of her aunt. In the evening, she returned home and was found to have come late. Therefore, the informant asked for explanation about the delay caused in returning. It is alleged that deceased Sheetal informed the mother that she had given false pretext and that she actually had gone to house of the ( 3 ) applicants to meet the children. She informed her mother that her husband and the mother-in-law did not allow her to meet the children and sent her back after giving threats. After passage of about one (1) week, on 5th September, 2010, Sheetal committed suicide by hanging herself to an iron beam by means of a rope. 3. The applicants are arrested in connection with crime No. 281/2010, registered at Azadnagar Police Station, Dhule for the offences punishable under section 306, 498A and 506 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code. 4. Heard learned advocate for the applicants and learned A.P.P. Perused the investigation papers. 5. It appears that custodial interrogation of the applicants is no more required and nothing is to be recovered from them in connection with the investigation. The sequence of the events go to show that since about three (3) years, the children were in the custody of the applicants and that, there was no serious complaint made by deceased Sheetal, nor she had filed any judicial proceedings for restoration of the custody of her children. The only incident which allegedly occurred ( 4 ) in the proximity of her death, that too prior to about one (1) week, is regarding denial of the applicants to allow access to the children. The FIR purports to show that deceased Sheetal was not allowed to see the children and went back after giving threats. So far as the nature of the threats is concerned, there is vagueness in the allegation and that mere denial to have access to the children by itself could not be prima facie regarded as the instance of the matrimonial cruelty which could have been the reason for the suicide. Assuming for a moment that it was the reason and deceased Sheetal was deeply hurt due to denial of the access to the children, yet, such act on part of the applicants, by itself, cannot be prima facie treated as an act of instigation of her suicide and intentional aiding to her suicide. Considering these aspects of the matter and particularly, when the applicants are residing in another town, their further detention is not required. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicants are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in sum of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand), each, alongwith one solvent surety, to the satisfaction of the Court of Sessions and on further condition that they shall not ( 5 ) contact any of the prosecution witnesses and shall make no attempt to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution and shall not enter limits of Dhule city unless are required to do so in connection with hearing of the Sessions Case that may be filed. 7. The observations in this order may not be considered while deciding the sessions trial on merits thereof. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3880-10