IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.665 OF 2009 1.Sindhu Raghoba Jagdale 2.Nandu Raghoba Jagdale ...Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent --- Shri Rahul Kadam i/b Shri Shubhash Hulyalkar for Applicants Shri Rajesh More, APP for State ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 10TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicant No.1 is an old lady, who is 70 years of age and the Applicant No. 2 is 50 years of age, have filed this application for anticipatory bail. 3. It is an admitted position that there was a dispute of partition of immovable property between the Applicants and the other Accused and the deceased Sonba Jagdale. A decree was passed in favour of the Applicants and even a warrant for possession was issued in their favour, which was to be executed within a short week of time. A dead body of Sonba Jagdale was found in a well and a complaint was filed, in which it was alleged that the present Applicants and the other accused had thrown deceased Sonba in the well, who was 82 years of age and had committed his murder. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant that there was no reason for the Applicants to commit the murder of Sonba, more particularly, he had obtained a decree in their favour and a warrant for taking possession of the ancestral property was also passed in their favour. He submitted that, therefore, all the Applicants were sought to be implicated in a false case. 5. It is submitted that there is no eye witness to the said incident and the entire evidence is of circumstantial nature. It is an admitted position that there is a delay of 20 days in filing the first information report. The present Applicant No.1 is an old lady, who is 70 years of age and no specific role has been attributed to the Applicants. 6. Taking into consideration the civil dispute, which is pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Junnar and the orders which were passed in favour of the Applicants and the fact that the Applicant No.1 is an old lady, in my view, and under these circumstances, prima facie case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. In any way, the other accused were arrested and have been released on bail. The investigation is over. Custodial interrogation of the Applicants, therefore, in my view, is not necessary. 7. The Applicants, in the event of their arrest in connection with an offence punishable under sections 302, 201 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide C.R. No. 2 of 2008 registered at Otur Police Station, shall be released on bail in a sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount. The Applicants shall co-operate with the police in the investigation of the case. The Applicant No.1 shall report to the concerned police station, as and when called. Police shall call the Applicant No.1 between 11 a.m. & 2 p.m. in the morning. 8. The Applicant No.2 shall report to the police for a period of one week from 16th February, 2009 between 11 a.m. & 5 p.m. and, thereafter, as and when called. He shall also report to the concerned police station once in a month. 9. Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is disposed of. V.M. KANADE J.