1appln-3614-3619-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 3614/2010 Mrs Vanita Rajendra Patil .. Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 3619/2010 Alka Laxman Malekar and anr.. Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr A.A. Deshpande, for the Applicants. Mr Y. M. Nakhawa, A.P.P.,for the State. CORAM:- A.R. JOSHI, J. DATE :- 16TH AUGUST, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on these anticipatory bail applications preferred by the applicants apprehending their arrest in C.R. No.120/2010 registered with Warje Malwadi Police Station, 2appln-3614-3619-10 District Pune for the offence punishable under Section 115, 120-B of I.P.C. As these applications are arising out of the same F.I.R. involving similar facts, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3614/2010. 2. The allegations against the present applicant are that she had conspired with the co-accused, her maternal aunt and her brother to do away with the present complainant and allegedly for that purpose one Corporator of Satara Municipal Corporation has been hired by the co-accused i.e.maternal aunt and brother of the present applicant. 3. After perusing the contents of the F.I.R. dated 8.6.2010, it appears that there are certain civil as well as matrimonial disputes between the original complainant and the maternal aunt of the present applicant. 4. During the arguments, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that though the maternal aunt of the present applicant is legally wedded wife of the present complainant, some third lady had filed a petition for nullity of the marriage between them. Such petition was filed before the Family Court at Pune and in fact the decree was 3appln-3614-3619-10 passed dissolving the marriage between the complainant and the maternal aunt of the present applicant. The order of the Family Court is challenged before the Division Bench of this Court and the proceeding is stayed. During the arguments, it is also pointed out that there is some dispute regarding Trusteeship of one Trust and said dispute is still pending before the Charity Commissioner and it is involving the present complainant and maternal aunt of the present applicant. It is also averred in the F.I.R. that the niece of the maternal aunt of the present applicant one Smt Surekha Misal, real sister of another co-accused by name Rajendra Patil has informed one day prior to lodging of the F.I.R.to the complainant that his wife i.e.maternal aunt of the present applicant and Rajendra Patil had arranged to do away with the complainant and had given an amount of Rs.5 lakhs to one Corporator of Satara Municipal Corporation. 5. During the arguments, the learned A.P.P.for the State produced the statement of one Surekha Misal recorded on the same day of the lodging of the F.I.R. The said statement reveals that about four years prior to the year 2010, there was some incident in which the said witness revealed regarding some conspiracy between the present applicant and the co-accused, during which it was decided that for 4appln-3614-3619-10 total amount of Rs.10 lakh said Corporator of Satara Municipal Corporation will commit murder of the present complainant and there was in fact some exchange of words as to why the work was not being done when the half of the amount i.e.Rs.5 lakh has already been paid. In the said meeting, allegedly an assurance was given to pay Rs.5 lakh after the work done and amount of Rs.5 lakh was given then and there. According to the statement of said witness this happened somewhere in the year 2006. 6. Considering the prima facie maternal available against the present applicant as to mere allegation made in the first paragraph of the F.I.R. as to along with the co-accused present applicant was enraged with the complainant on account of some dispute between the Trustees of the Trust, there is nothing to accept any positive action on the part of the applicant so far as alleged conspiracy to do away the complainant. In the result, it must be said that in the present matter discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail can be granted in favour of the applicant. CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 3619/2010 7. So far as this application is concerned, two more applicants who are asking for anticipatory bail, are related to one Vimal Patil, who 5appln-3614-3619-10 is the maternal aunt of the applicant in Criminal Application No. 3614/2010. It is allegation against the applicant no.1 in this application that the Corporator of Satara Municipal Corporation has been introduced to Vimal Patil by the said applicant. However, there is no any specific role given to both the applicants, apart from such mere introduction and that also allegedly occurred during the year 2006 or so. According to the learned A.P.P. such revelation was gathered because of statement of co-accused i.e.the Corporator of Satara Municipal Corporation. Considering such allegations, even, prima facie there is nothing to reject their bail application for anticipatory bail. Such relief is also being granted to both the applicants in Cri. Application No. 3619/2010. Hence, the following order:- ORDER: (a) Anticipatory bail application Nos.3614/2010 and 3619/2010 are hereby allowed. (b) In the event of arrest of the applicants in C.R. No. 120/2010 with Warje Malwadi Police Station, Pune for the offence punishable under Sections 115, 120(b) of I.P.C. they shall be released on bail on executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-each with one surety in the like amount. 6appln-3614-3619-10 (c) Any observations made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial. Applications are disposed of in above terms. (A.R.JOSHI,J)