1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3412 OF 2010 Sharad Babasaheb Borude and another ..APPLICANTS -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr. S.S. Deshmukh, advocate for applicants. Mrs. S.D. Shelke, A.P.P. for respondent. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 9th September, 2010. PER COURT : 1. This is an application for bail. 2. The applicants have been charge-sheeted and are facing criminal case for the offences under Sections 302, 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The incident giving rise to the prosecution is said to have occurred in the morning of 16th April, 2010. There was quarrel between informant-Ranjana and her husband on one hand and the applicant no.1 and applicant no.2 on the other hand. The applicant no.1 allegedly abused the informant and assaulted her by 2 means of stick. She was injured. Her husband by name Bharat tried to intervene in order to save her. At that juncture, in the hit of anger, the applicant no.2 picked up infant daughter of informant- Ranjana, namely, Pranjali, aged about 8 months by snatching from her possession. Immediately thereafter, the applicant no.2 went near the well situated by the side of house and plunged the infant child inside the well. When husband of the informant i.e. Bharat reached near the well, all of sudden, the applicant no.1 pushed him inside the well knowing fully well that Bharat was not knowing art of swimming. Both of them died due to the drowning in that well. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.P.P. and on going through the relevant investigation papers, it transpires that there is eye witnesses account available in respect of the incident of quarrel as well as alleged incident of throwing away infant child in the well and pushing deceased Bharat inside the well by the applicant no.2 and 1, respectively. Considering the role played by the applicant no.1, it will have to be said that instead of going to assist the infant child and save her life, the applicant no.1 pushed the deceased Bharat inside the well in order to eliminate him. Therefore, such cruel act, prima facie, would disentitle him from claiming liberty. 3 5. So far as the applicant no.2 is concerned, she is old aged woman and had quarreled with the daughter-in-law in the relevant morning. She acted impulsively. No doubt, she had mercilessly thrown away the infant child in the well but act was committed at the spur of moment and in the hit of anger which had been propelled as a result of immediate preceding quarrel. Under these circumstances, it is probable that her act may come within the ambit of Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and may not come within the ambit of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Moreover, she is old aged woman and is therefore covered by categories of persons who can be granted bail even in the cases where otherwise such liberty is unavailable. Considering the protective discriminations in her favour and circumstances noted above, she is entitled to bail on certain conditions. 6. In the result, application is dismissed to the extent of applicant no.1 whereas it is partly allowed to the extent of applicant no.2-Parvati @ Mathurabai and she is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing Bail Bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) with one Solvent Surety to the satisfaction of the Court of Sessions and on condition that she shall not enter the limits of village Borude and Amrapur until the Sessions Trial is over and she shall not make attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in 4 any manner, nor she shall contact with the informant during the pendency of the Sessions Case. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/cri3412.10