Bombay High Court
Archana D/O. Sakharam Jamdade vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 January, 2020
Author: R. G. Avachat
Bench: R. G. Avachat
1 aba-1568-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1568 OF 2019
Archana d/o Sakharam Jamdade ... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
....
Mr. S. S. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. S. Y. Mahajan, APP for respondent-State.
....
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J.
DATED : 06th JANUARY, 2020
PER COURT :-
. This is an application for bail under section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The applicant claims to have an apprehension of
being arrested in connection with Crime No. 0235/2019, registered at
Aundha Nagnath Police Station, District Hingoli, for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 201, 506 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard. Perused the First Information Report (FIR) and related
papers.
1 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:45:00 :::
2 aba-1568-19.doc
The FIR has been lodged by the mother of the deceased on
24.10.2019 against her two brothers-in-law and two sisters-in-law
(applicant who is one of them). It is alleged in the FIR that the
informant's husband has suffered paralysis attack. The informant has
no good relations with him. The informant, her son Deepak (deceased)
and daughter Aarti were residing together. The family has two
vehicles. One was being plied for passenger ferrying. The other was
stationary. Deceased Deepak would therefore ask his uncles to give him
the stationary jeep, so that he can earn his livelihood. His uncles
Pramod and Satish had threatened Deepak that if he asked for share in
the property, he would be killed. The applicant and another sister-in-
law Usha used to abuse and quarrel with the informant and the
deceased.
It so happened that on 16.09.2019, Deepak found dead near a
pond. The informant, therefore, went there to find accused Pramod,
Satish, Usha and the applicant near the pond. No injury was noticed on
the person of the deceased. On postmortem examination, Pramod
himself gave report to the police. It came to be registered as accidental
death (A.D.). After the funeral was over, Pramod, Satish, Usha and
Archana (applicant) threatened the informant that if she lodge the
police report, her daughter and she would be killed.
2 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:45:00 :::
3 aba-1568-19.doc
After having gathered courage, the informant lodged FIR on
24.10.2019.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the
applicant is lady. The FIR has been lodged 30 days after the alleged
incident. He, therefore, urged for grant of anticipatory bail.
4. Learned APP, would on the other hand submit that it is a serious
offence. The relations between the informant and her in-laws were not
good. There was property dispute. There are eye witnesses to the
incident, who have seen the applicant and co-accused beating of the
deceased. He, therefore, urged for rejection of the application.
5. It is unfortunate that a young son of the informant has died of a
head injury on 16.09.2019. The FIR has been lodged 38 days after the
incidence. The informant is not an eye witness. There are statements of
three persons namely Suresh Nadar, Vinod Nadar and Ramabai Pahare.
These three witnesses claimed to have seen Pramod, Satish, Usha and
Archana (applicant) assaulting the deceased with fist and kicks and
took him towards the well. The statements of these witnesses have
been recorded about 42 days after the alleged incident. Deceased died
of a single head injury.
3 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:45:00 :::
4 aba-1568-19.doc
6. Close reading of police papers indicate that co-accused Pramod
gave a statement to the police that he had quarrel with the deceased on
the given date. He, therefore, inflicted a belt on his head. The deceased
fell.
True, this statement is inadmissible in evidence. Pramod also
appears to have given a disclosure statement, pursuant to which a
leather belt came to be seized.
7. The applicant is a lady. The FIR has been lodged 38 days after
the alleged incident. Eye witnesses gave their statement about 42 days
after the alleged incident. The applicant and co-accused were seen
assaulting the deceased with fists and kicks. The deceased died due to
head injury, allegedly inflicted by co-accused Pramod with a belt. In the
aforesaid factual backdrop, I am inclined to grant the applicant
anticipatory bail. Hence, following order :
ORDER
I. The application is allowed.
II. In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 0235/2019, registered at Aundha Nagnath Police Station, District Hingoli, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 506 read with 4 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:45:00 ::: 5 aba-1568-19.doc Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant be released on executing P. R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with surety bond in the like amount.
III. The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required.
IV. The application is disposed of.
[ R. G. AVACHAT, J. ] SMS 5 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:45:00 :::