IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4197 OF 2007. APPLICATION NO.4197 OF 2007. APPLICATION NO.4197 OF 2007. Sou. Manisha Motiram Jachak. ..Applicant. versus Shri Abasaheb Sopanrao Jachak & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr. V.V.Purwant, for the Applicant. Mr. R.S.Kate, for the Respondent No.2. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent-State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 21ST AUGUST,2008. : 21ST AUGUST,2008. : 21ST AUGUST,2008. P.C. 1. The Applicant by filing this Application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has challenged the order dated 27th September 2007 passed by the learned Adhoc Sessions Judge-I, Baramati, Pune, by which the first Respondent was ordered to be enlarged on bail. The Applicant is the original Complainant i.e. the first informant. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17th September 2007, at 10.00 a.m., the husband of the Applicant Motiram went towards his field. The allegation made by the Applicant was that on 5.15 p.m. on the same day, one person informed her that her husband was very sick. When the Applicant visited the hospital, the Applicant was told that her husband had died. The allegation made is that the - 2 - son of the first Respondent was in custody of a gun held by the first Respondent and he fired two bullets at the said Motiram. An offence was registered under sections 302, 120B, 109 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3, 25(1)(b) and section 30 of the Arms Act. While granting bail, the learned Adhoc Sessions Judge observed that there was no prima-facie material available against the Applicant to indicate his involvement in any offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the first Respondent was not present at the scene of offence and allegation is that his son used the gun held by the first Respondent and fired bullets at the deceased. The learned Judge observed that the gun alongwith empty cartridges were already seized and therefore, no custodial interrogation of the first Respondent was required. The learned Judge noted that the age of the first Respondent is 65 years and he was suffering from various aliments. 3. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant is that considering the gravity of offence, the learned Judge ought not to have granted bail in favour of the first Respondent even before the investigation was completed. - 3 - 4. Considering the role ascribed to the first Respondent and the fact that there is already a seizure made of the gun and empty cartridges, it is difficult to find fault with the order of the learned Judge granting bail in favour of the first Respondent especially when the allegation was that the son of the first Respondent had fired bullets at deceased Motiram. 5. No case for interference is made out. The Application is rejected. It is however made clear that the observations made in this order are for limited purpose of considering the challenge to the order dated 21st September 2007. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]