IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLICATION NO.1053 OF 200 CRI.APPLICATION NO.1053 OF 200 CRI.APPLICATION NO.1053 OF 2009 Pappubai Chandrabhan Durande Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent AND CRI.APPLICATION NO.1054 OF 200 CRI.APPLICATION NO.1054 OF 200 CRI.APPLICATION NO.1054 OF 2009 1.Sampat Chandrabhan Durande and 3 ors. Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra, .. Respondent. Mr.Umesh R.Mankapure, for the applicant. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP, for the respondent-State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 06/04/2009 DATE : 06/04/2009 DATE : 06/04/2009 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP for the respondent. 2. The applicants in both the applications are seeking bail in C.R.No. 272 of 2008 of Karmala police station, Dist: Solapur. The said crime has been registered against the applicants for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 302,201 read with 34 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that all the five applicants-accused allegedly killed one Manisha, the wife of the complainant. Manisha was found dead in a well. I have perused the statements of the witnesses and more particularly the statement of the complainant, his daughter Rupali and his father Chandrabhan. From the statement of Rupali, it appears that on 1.11.2008 she had seen the four applicants in Application No.1054 of 2009 taking her mother Manisha away by using force. She had seen them taking her towards the well in their field. Thereafter, her dead body was found in the well on 3.11.2008. Rupali has also stated that when the four applicants, in criminal Application No.1054 of 2009, were taking away her mother, the applicant in Criminal Application No.1053 of 2009 was abusing her mother. Mr Mankapure, learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that though, according to Rupali, she had disclosed this incident to her father, who is a complainant, he did not make any reference to the accused in the missing report lodged by him on 2.11.2008. This discrepancy would not help the applicants at this stage of the proceedings. It appears that after the incident when the complainant and Rupali tried to find the deceased, they had also seen her in the well and they did not find her there and, therefore, a missing complainant was lodged. That apart, I do not find any reason for Rupali to state completely false story. Chandrabhan, the father of the complainant and the accused also support the prosecution case insofar as dispute between the children of his two wives over the landed property is concerned. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegations against all the five accused, I am inclined to enlarge on bail only the applicant- Pappubai Chandrabhan Durande in criminal Application No.1054 of 2009. Insofar as the applicants in criminal Application No.1054 of 2009 are concerned, their application is rejected. 4. In the circumstances, I direct that the applicant Pappubai Chandrabhan Durande be released on bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties to make up the said amount, on the condition that she shall not enter the village Rajuri, Taluka Karmala, which is a permanent residence of the complainant and his daughter for a period of six months from today. She shall inform her address where she propsoes to reside during pendency of the trial to the concerned police station within one week from the date of her release. 5. Having regard to the fact that all the four applicants are members of one and the same family, the trial court shall endeavour to dispose of the trial as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of this order. . While passing this order, I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. 6. Both the applications are disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)