1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 5. CRI.APPLN/5009/2010 (VAISHALI DHONDOPANT NITURKAR AND ORS V/S THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. R.S.Deshmukh, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. K.M.Suryawanshi, APP for State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 10.1.2011 1. Heard extensively. In Crime No. 181/2010, of Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur, for an offense under Sections 307, 498-A , 506 read with 34 of IPC pre-arrest bail is sought. 2. The inter se relations between the parties is not in controversy. Learned Counsel dealt with earlier events and the acrimonious relations between the parties to impress that, events could not have taken place on dt.4th August, 2010, at 8 p.m. He reiterates, the implication of Medical Officer Ganesh who, apparently, was serving at Mumbai at 2 the material time also shows the mindset of the victim and her mentor. He submits, the neatly typed eight page report to the Police for the incident occurred at 8 p.m. filed at 11.45 p.m. would demonstrate that there was a hatched conspiracy to implicate the accused applicant and the other family members. 3. Though several contentions are raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, including reliance on Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2010 (12) SCALE 691), the initial investigation, including report of the victim, illustrated specific role pointed to all the three accused/applicants herein. Vaishali, the mother-in-law and cousin father-in-law instigated hired hirelings to ensure plan to be succeeded while accused applicant No.2 Manuja allegedly caught hold the victim. Medical report display abrasion to her fore arm. That apart, the odour of kerosene was emitting from the saree worn by 3 victim. Everything in such fashion could not have been planned and planted at the premises on first floor which is under domain of applicants. It is again surprising that, at the ground floor, the husband has his clinic and, consequently, it is apparently difficult to digest that a kerosene can or matchstick could be carried by an outsider meticulously to create show of incident against the accused persons. 4. In the situation, since the allegations of grave and serious nature are attributed against the applicants, the same cannot simply be ignored, to accede for pre-arrest bail. The observations made are prima facie in nature. Application rejected. 5. Heard. Accused/applicants to surrender before the investigator upto 19th Jan.,2011. The interim protection dt.6th Dec.,2010 to continue till then. 4 6. Copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar be provided to requesting parties. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... AGP/5009-10crapl