abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3787 OF 2007 Mrs. Sunita G. Rajwani .. Applicant V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.A.P. Mundargi i/b Mr.Ganesh Gole for the applicant. Mr.U.V. Nikam, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 16TH JANUARY 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant apprehends that she may be arrested in connection with the crime registered at Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station, Thane under C.R. No.I-396/2007 for the offence punishable under sections 417, 465, 467, 468, 471, 353, 279 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and under section 37 of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution case in short is that on 3rd - 2 - October 2007, the police received an information that one Javed Shaikh was possessing illegal fire arms. Police accordingly arrested Javed Shaikh, but no fire arm was found with him. He however told that he had given three fire arms to Sarfaraz Sayed. Police then arrested Sarfaraz Sayed who told that he had given the said fire arms to one Raju. Raju was arrested and four fire arms were recovered from him. In his statement, Raju told the police that he had been given those arms by one Akbar Hussain who was engaged by the applicant for the purpose of contract killing of one Deepak Sonde, who is alleged to be involved in the murder of the husband of the applicant. On the basis of the statement of Raju, the applicant apprehends that she may be arrested in connection with the crime. 4. By an order dated 29th November 2007, the applicant was granted interim protection with a direction to cooperate with the investigation and attend the concerned police station. The applicant has since cooperated with the investigation and her statement has been recorded. She has also been attending the Crime Branch of the police to whom the investigation has been transferred. 5. During the period of 3 months from 3rd October 2007, the police have not found out any incriminating - 3 - material against the applicant. Except for bare statement of a co-accused Raju, there is no material against the applicant. Even Raju does not say that the applicant had given him the instruction, but has stated that a third person, namely Akbar Hussain, had told him about the involvement of the applicant. 6. Taking into consideration the nature of the allegations against the applicant and the nature of the material available against her and also taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is a widow and has been cooperating with the investigation, in my view, she is entitled to anticipatory bail. Hence, I pass the following order: ORDER ORDER ORDER In the event of the arrest of the applicant in connection with the crime bearing C.R. No.I-396/2007 registered with Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station, Thane, the applicant shall be released on bail on executing personal bond of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties of Rs.15,000/- each subject to the following conditions: (a) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and attend the police station as and when required. - 4 - (b) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. (c) This order shall come to an end on the charge sheet being filed, whereupon the applicant shall be entitled to apply for regular bail before the regular court, if so advised. If such application is made, it shall be considered on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. . Application is disposed of. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)