1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (BA) No. 546/2011 Smt. Rangubai W/o Gopi Hatagale and another vs.. State of Maharashtra through P.S.O. P.S. Pandharkawada, Tq. Kelapur, Dist. Yavatmal Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. R. D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for the Applicant Mr. S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for the Non-Applicant CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J. DATED : 11.10.2011. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Both the applicants, who have been arrested on 13/04/2011 in Crime No. 77/11 registered at Police Station Pandharkawda for offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have filed the present application for bail. 3. The allegation against the applicants is as follows: (i) The applicant no. 1 is the wife of the deceased Gopi Hatgale and that the applicant no. 1 had illicit relations with the applicant no. 2 Harish, who is the younger brother of the deceased. 2 (ii) Since the deceased came to know about the said illicit relationship, there was quarrel and, thereafter, the applicant no. 1 along with the deceased and the child went to reside at Pandharkawda on 08/04/2011. (iii) On 09/04/2011, the applicants along with one Rajendra Bhede killed the deceased Gopi by pressing his neck with the help of ‘dupatta’. 4. It is seen that there are witnesses, who have seen the illicit relationship between the applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 2. There are witnesses who had seen the applicant no. 2 & Rajkumar Bhede at the house of deceased Gopi on 08/04/2011 and, Gopi was objecting to their visit. The witnesses have seen the applicants and said Rajkumar Bhede going out on the same evening with the deceased but, while returning the deceased was not with them. 5. Subsequently, the deceased was found dead by the side of the road at Chintamani and cause of death as per post-mortem examination report is cardio respiratory arrest due to asphyxia on account of strangulation by the ligature. ‘U’ shape ligature mark was found around the neck. 6. There is prima facie evidence against both the applicants which is based on strong circumstantial evidence. 3 Besides the above, the applicant no. 1 is said to have made extra judicial confession to some witnesses. If the applicants are released on bail, there is possibility that they would tamper with the prosecution witnesses. The respondent has even gone to the extent of alleging that there is danger to the life of the witnesses. 7. Mr. R. D. Bhuibhar, learned Advocate for the applicants has contended that the applicant no. 1 is a woman having two daughters, out of which one is with her in jail and therefore at least she be granted bail. I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant no. 1 on the above ground. However, the trial can be expedited. 8. Hence, the application is rejected. However, the Sessions Judge, Pandharkawda, Yavatmal District shall expedite the trial of the case arising out of Crime No. 77/11 of Pandharkawda Police Station. JUDGE Punde.