1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5472 OF 2010 Ratnamala Uttam Hirve ...Applicant. v. State of Maharashtra ...Respondents. Mr. Sachin Thombare, adv. For the Applicant. Mr. S.A.Shaikh, APP For the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JANUARY 18, 2011. P.C. 1 The applicant seeks to be released on bail in crime no.289 of 2010 registered by Chinchwad police station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 506 r/w Section 34 of the I.P.C. 2 Prosecution case in brief is that on 14.10.2010 Dandia was organised and Minakshi daughter of the first informant Navnath Kasbe was also playing dandiya. At that time, Vijay Uttam Hirve, who was son of the present applicant, came there in drunken condition and began to participate in Dandiya. He was teasing the girls. He also tried to tease Minakshi, therefore, said Vijay was removed from that place and was not allowed to participate in Dandiya. On next day said Vijay offered apology. On 16.10.2010 the present applicant went to the house of the 2 first informant Navnath and threatened his wife by saying "You have not allowed my son to play dandia, tomorrow you will see the result." Saying so, she went away. On 17.10.2010 at about 7.30 p.m. Uttam Hirve and Vijay Hirve came there in their car and within five minutes thereafter Raju Hirve also came there on bike. Manoj, son of the first informant, was forced to sit on the bike and he was abducted by Raju. His father Uttam and brother Vijay followed them on car. On the next day deadbody of Manoj was found with crush injury on head and several fractures of the skull bones and some other injuries. In view of this, Raju ,his brother Vijay, father Uttam and mother Ratnamala were arrested. The present applicant is mother of the said Raju. 3 Investigation is already completed. From investigation papers, it appears that there are two witnesses about the abduction of Manoj. At the time of abduction, husband and two sons of the present applicant were present and they had participated in the abduction. There is not a single witness, who had seen the present applicant at the time of abduction or at the time of assault. Case against her is restricted to the threat given by her on the earlier date. 4 Applicant is a woman aged about 45 years. In view of the facts noted above, I find that the applicant may be granted bail. 3 5 Applicant be released on her executing PR of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount with condition that she shall not tamper the prosecution evidence. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)