BA-1020-11.sxw 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1020 OF 2011 Himanshu Satish Jaiswal @ Dolly ... Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Dr. Nilesh Pawaskar with Ms. Aparna Vhatkar, i/b. Mr. Sunil Morie, for the Applicant. Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP, for the Respondent. CORAM: A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED : 10 TH AUGUST, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. Two small children - Om Jaiswal, aged 5 years, and Rutika Jaiswal, aged about 2 years - were murdered on 15th October, 2010. Totally eight persons, including the Applicant, have been arrested in the case alleging that the said murders were committed in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused persons. The Accused Nos.1 and 2 – Vishal Jaiswal and Rupa Jaiswal - are the father and mother, respectively, of the said children. Accused Nos.3 and 4 - Sachchaprasad and Smt. Sumitra - are the grand-father and grand-mother of the said children, respectively. The Accused No.6 - Satish Jaiswal - is the BA-1020-11.sxw 2 Dixit maternal uncle of the said children and the Applicant, who is the Accused No. 5, is the wife of the said Satish Jaiswal. The other accused Dinesh Jaiswal and Sanjay Jaiswal are also relatives of the said children. 3. Some of the accused in this case have been released on bail. 4. The prosecution case is that the murders took place because of the belief that some evil spirit had entered inside the body of the said children and that evil spirit was to be driven out. For that purpose, the children were assaulted by their own relatives. Now the allegation is that this belief has been, at-least partly, caused by the present Applicant, who used to claim that God enters inside her. It also appears that whatever she would state was being done by the others in the belief that these words were coming from the God. 5. A number of contentions have been raised by Mr. Pawaskar, the learned Advocate for the Applicant. There is substance in his contentions, that the case against the Applicant is mainly based on the statements of the co-accused. However, it is not that the case is entirely based on the statements of the co- accused. There is a basis for believing that the present Applicant abetted the commission of the alleged acts. Her role, as has been given to her, cannot be said to be on par with that of the other accused, who have been released on bail. 6. The contention that the Applicant has been falsely implicated by other Accused cannot be accepted at this stage. BA-1020-11.sxw 3 Dixit 7. There is no material to suggest that the Applicant herself was in a bonafide belief that God enters her person, or that she herself is suffering from any disease which creates such an impression in her mind. 8. It is urged that the Applicant is a woman of 20 years and she is physically infirm. 9. Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter and keeping in mind the nature of material against her, though I am not inclined to release her on bail at this stage, it would be appropriate to direct the trial to be expeditiously held. The prayer for bail can be considered, if the trial is not over within the stipulated time. 10. The Bail Application is rejected. 11. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and endeavour to complete it within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 12. Liberty to the Applicant to apply afresh for bail, should the trial be not over within that time. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.]