1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) No.94/2011 ( Vatslabai wd/o Dattarao Chavan .vs. State of Mah. Through PSO Pophali, tahsil Umarkhed, Dist. Yavatmal. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. K.S. Narwade, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S.B. Ahirkar, APP for Respondent. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : MARCH 29, 2011 Heard. Though prayer for bail made by the applicant/accused who is 68 years of age and apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.5/2011 registered at Police Station Pophali on 10.2.2011 for offence under Sections 302, 307, 498-A read with 34 of I.P.C. upon dying declaration of victim Neeta – daughter- in-law of the applicant recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate on 9.2.2011, is strongly opposed by the learned APP on the ground of the deceased having described the role played by the applicant along with husband of the deceased in the said dying declaration, still the same deserves consideration, having regard to the circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant being found prima facie correct after perusal of the material in the case diary shown i.e. in the initial dying declaration made by the deceased on 2 8.2.2011 the role of pouring kerosene and setting her on fire being ascribed only to the husband of the deceased and not to the applicant; the applicant being a woman of advance age of 68 years ( as per the election identity card tendered xerox copy marked as “X”), the investigation being practically complete there would be hardly any room of prosecution evidence getting tampered. The same deserves consideration as say filed by the prosecution do not reveal any specific aspect has remained to be investigated requiring custodial interrogation of the applicant. In view of the same having due regard to the age of the applicant and considering her case upon the guidelines given by the Apex Court in the decision in a case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre .vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. reported in 2010 (12) SCALE 691 in paragraphs 122 to 125, the applicant has made out a case for granting the direction as prayed for. Needless to add that the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the refusal of giving the direction as sought for may not serve any useful purpose but unnecessary humiliation at such advance age, cannot be said to be prima facie devoid of merit. Inform the Investigating Officer of said crime that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the said crime, she shall be forthwith released on bail on furnishing a P.R. Bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac) with two sureties in like amount and subject to the conditions that applicant: (i) shall attend said Police Station everyday in between 11 a.m. and 12 noon for first eight days and 3 thereafter on every Monday in connection with the investigation of the said crime until filing of the charge sheet; (ii) shall not , directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation levelled against her so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Police Officer; (iii) shall stay at the address mentioned in the application and shall not change the same without permission of the Court; Application stands disposed of. JUDGE halwai