1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 875 OF 2008 Indira D/o Shripat More & Others ..... PETITIONERS V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra .... RESPONDENT Shri. V.G. Dixit , Sr. Counsel for petitioners. Shri. Deelip Bankar Patil, A.P.P. for Resp. Nos. 1 & 2 [ CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. ] DATE : 18/06/2009 ------------------------------------------------- PER COURT : 1. Heard Shri. V.G.Dixit, Sr. counsel appearing for Petitioners, The accused/applicant has been implicated in a Crime registered at Deopur Police Station bearing No. 57 of 2003 registered on 21/6/2003. The accused is charged for the offence punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The accused is facing trial in respect of offence punishable under sections 302, 201, 202, 203 and 120-B of Indian Penal 2 Code and Charge Sheet has been presented against accused and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions at Dhule. The accused/applicant is stated to have filed complaint on 21/6/2003 in respect of death of her mother Shakuntala. On perusal of F.I.R. as well as relevant papers of investigation tendered by the police authority, it does transpire that the death of Shakuntala is homicidal. It is stated in the F.I.R. that the death of Shakuntala is caused by unknown person. During the course of investigation, police arrested the informant herself on 2/12/2003. She was later on directed to be released on bail. The police after completing investigation, presented charge sheet on 8/11/2005. The applicant presented application seeking discharge to the Court of Sessions on 10/4/2005, which came to be rejected by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dhule by his order dated 8/6/2007. In the application it is stated by the applicant that prosecution has failed to collect evidence so as to connect accused with the alleged crime and as such she is entitled to be discharged. The trial court also, without recording any evidence, by a criptic order, rejected the application. 2. Shri. Dixit, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner has referred to the statement of witnesses recorded by police. The counsel has also invited my attention to the report of the Chemical 3 Analyzer. The counsel has urged that there is absolutely no material collected by police to link the accused with the alleged crime. Reading the statements of witnesses recorded by police at their face value, there is absolutely no material so as to frame charge against the accused. The counsel, therefore, contends that the accused/applicant is entitled to be discharged from the case. 3. On perusal of the application tendered by the applicant before the Court of Sessions, it appears that the application is deficient in material particulars. There are no reasons set out in the application for consideration of prayer. So also, the order passed by the learned Judge of the trial Court does not set out any reason for rejection of application. 4. In this view of the matter, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate for the petitioner/applicant to tender detailed application afresh setting forth the reasons to support the prayer in respect of discharge from the case. The petitioner may tender fresh application to the Sessions Court and the trial Court on considering the application as well as on consideration of the material collected by police, pass a reasoned order. 4 5. In these circumstances, therefore, it is desirable to permit the applicant to tender a fresh application. The trial Court shall pass appropriate order after considering relevant material, if such an application is presented. The Writ Petition can be disposed accordingly by granting liberty to petitioner to tender fresh application with a direction to the learned trial Judge to decide such application on its presentation. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. [ R.M.BORDE ] JUDGE knp/CRIWP875.08