ARUN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants in Criminal Application No. 3201 of 2019 and Criminal Application No. 3160 of 2019. For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed in terms of prayer clauses "B" respectively and disposed of accordingly.

(2.) The applicant - ARUN S/O. BHAUSAHEB PALANGE in anticipatory bail application no.1211 of 2019 and applicant - CHANDARANI W/O. SACHIN SHINDE in anticipatory bail application no. 1174 of 2019 are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.293 of 2019 registered with Tuljapur Police Station, District Osmanabad for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 r/w 34 of IPC . Their applications with similar prayer bearing Criminal Bail Application Nos.298 of 2019 and 296 of 2019 came to be rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Osmanabad, vide orders dated 04.09.2019 and 27.08.2019.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants in both anticipatory bail applications submit that marriage of deceased - Renuka with co-accused - Dashrath came to be solemnized way back in the year 2006. The couple was also blessed with two children and she was also taking care of one child of earlier marriage of her husband. There are allegations to the extent that the present applicants along with Dashrath were insisting the deceased to give title documents pertaining to the residential house for the purpose of availing loan for construction of the house of applicant - Arun herein. They wanted to mortgage the said residential house for availment of loan for construction of the house of the applicant Arun herein. It is further alleged in the complaint that deceased was not ready and willing for the same and even she was not giving the title documents to her husband and applicants herein. to abusing on that count. Though there are allegations about suspecting the deceased for commission of theft of certain amount, however, those allegations are restricted against co- accused husband Dashrath who is arrested in connection with the present crime. Learned counsel submits that no specific instances have been quoted in the complaint about ill- treatment being extended to the deceased. The applicant Chandarani got married way back in the year 2006 and she is residing with her husband. Learned counsel submits that only on account of death of the deceased, other family members also came to be falsely implicated in this crime. The applicants may be released on anticipatory bail.