... 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5401 OF 2005 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5401 OF 2005 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5401 OF 2005 Tarabai Ramchandra Parandwal ...Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Shri. Vikas Shivarkar for the Applicant. Shri. A.S. Gadkari, A.P.P. for the Respondent. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : AUGUST 29, 2005. DATE : AUGUST 29, 2005. DATE : AUGUST 29, 2005. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the Advocate appearing for the Applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant is fourty nine years old woman having two minor sons. He submitted that except for that the alleged confessional statement of the co-accused, there is no material on record available against the Applicant. He submitted that there is no proper identification of the dead body of the deceased. 2. The learned A.P.P. pointed out that there is a recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of the Applicant from her house. He submitted that the recovery is important part of the chain to prove the case of prosecution on the basis of circumstantial evidence. 3. I have considered the submissions. Considering the nature of the offence and material available against the Applicant including the recovery allegedly made from the house of the Applicant, in my view, this is not a case where the Applicant can be enlarged on bail. Application is rejected. ... 2 ... JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE