Afsarsha Ramzansha v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. Asegaon-Purna Tq. Achalpur Dist. Amravati

1 aba12.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.12/2017 Afsarsha Ramzansha ..Vs..

State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer Asegaon-purna, Tq. Achalpur, Distt. Amravati - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.S. Patil, Advocate for the applicant.

Shri A.D. Sonak, A.P.P. for the respondent / State. CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATE : 13.6.2017.

Heard.

The applicant has sought pre-arrest bail apprehending arrest in crime registered against him for offence punishable under Sections 306, 498-A and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The crime is registered on the complaint of Ramzansha (father of deceased) against the applicant, his brother, brother's wife and cousin brother and son of cousin sister of the applicant. According to the investigating agency, deceased (wife of applicant) committed suicide because of ill-treatment meted out to her by the accused and because of the suspicion about her character. The learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the incident has occurred after 17 years of marriage and during these 17 years there is no complaint

2 aba12.17 by the deceased against the applicant. It is submitted that the deceased and applicant have three children who are still living with the applicant. The co-accused are granted bail.

The applicant is granted interim protection by this Court by the order passed on 6th January, 2017. It is not the complaint of the investigating agency that the applicant has misused the interim protection. Investigating agency has not been able to point out that custody of the applicant is required for further investigation.

In the above facts, I am of the view that the order passed by this Court on 6th January, 2017 is required to be confirmed. The order is confirmed and application is allowed accordingly.

JUDGE Tambaskar.