1 ba 946 of 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.946 OF 2011 1. Mr. Sachin Dnyaneshwar Shikare 2. Dnyaneshwar Maruti Shikare, 3. Suman Dnyaneshwar Shikare .. Applicants. -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. S. V.Kotwal, for the Applicant. Mrs. A. A. Mane, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 24th August, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application by husband and parents-in-law of the victim who was killed inside the house by smothering. The cause of death certified is by smothering. The neighbour, Shashikala Mane states that on the incidental afternoon at about 3.00 p.m. applicant Dnyaneshwar called her. Applicant Suman was present in the house and Suman told her that her son Sachin had just left on motorcycle. The applicants Dnyaneshwar and Suman seem to have stated that the victim was lying unconscious on her bed. Thereafter the victim was taken in the hospital, where she died. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicants are not involved in any such incident though there are statements about disputes 2 ba 946 of 2011 between applicants and the victim. If the applicants Dnyaneshwar and Suman were found to be present at home when the incident took place, it could indicate their complicity. Apart from this, applicant Dnyaneshwar had some injuries on his back which could be consistent with the injuries that may be caused in course of struggle by the victim. Suman had no injuries. Sachin too had no injuries. Learned counsel for the applicant states that there is a statement of Sachin's friend Anand to show that Sachin was not present in the house at the time of incident. According to Shashikala she was called by applicant Dnyaneshwar at 3.00 p.m. According to Anand at 3.00 p.m. he met Sachin. Suman told Shashikala that Sachin had just left on his motorcycle. According to Shashkala, victim was already struggling for life. Therefore, it would be difficult to conclude that Sachin was away from the spot or had no role to play in the incident. This attempt to show that Sachin was away, itself casts a suspicion about his complicity. Learned APP submitted that statement of Shashikala would show that the victim had quarrel with Suman as well. However, since the very presence of Suman in itself may not justify denial of bail to her, application so far as Suman is concerned, since there is no injury on her person may have to be allowed. Though there is no injury on the person of Sachin, since applicant Dnyaneshwar tried to show that applicant Sachin was not present at the time of incident, when 3 ba 946 of 2011 according to Shashikala, applicant Suman told her that applicant Sachin had just left on motorcycle and could have been present, the application so far as applicant Nos 1 and 2 are concerned, is disallowed. The applicant Suman Dnyaneshwar Shikare, arrested in C.R. No.37 of 2011, registered at Barshi Police Station, District: Solapur be released on bail on her furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the aggregate sum of Rs.25,000/-. 2. Application so far as applicant Nos 1 and 2 Sachin and Dnyaneshwar is concerned, it is rejected. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)