IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1064/2009 (Sau. Geeta Kamal Aneja--versus- State of Mah. ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 22 nd APRIL, 2009 Heard Shri Mirza, Advocate, for the applicant and Shri Thakare, APP, for respondent State. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. The applicant is an accused of the offence under Section 363, 364, 302 of IPC in Crime NO. 419/2009, dated 21.11.2008 of Police Station Ramnagar, Chandrapur. The allegations against the applicant are that on 20.11.1998 she threw Ku. Janhvi @ Janu, daughter of elder brother of her husband in the well and caused her death. The applicant seems to be arrested on 25.11.2008. It appears that earlier the missing report was lodged and thereafter, the possibility of kidnapping was expressed. The earlier report was dated 20.11.2008 and the latter report was dated 21.11.2008. It is the case of applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated because of un-cordial relations between her husband and the applicant, at his instance. It is necessary to note that the evidence pressed into service by the prosecution against the applicant is that of statement of Avatarsingh and Puransingh, who have stated that they have seen the deceased with the applicant at about 4 p.m. on the day of incident. Therefore, the prosecution wants to make this evidence as evidence of “last seen together”. Admittedly, the statements of these witnesses have been recorded on 28.11.2008 i.e. not prior to the arrest of the applicant. Therefore, ex facie, this evidnece does not support the prosecution. Learned APP also relied on the statement of security guard who had allegedly seen the applicant coming from Gurudwara side where the well is situated at the relevant time and therefore, according to the learned prosecutor, this is the incriminating evidence against the applicant. Even if all this evidence is considered, it is difficult to say that the case based on circumstantial evidence is made out against the applicant. Of course, this is prima facie opinion, but then the applicant cannot be denied bail. In the circumstances, the applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety and P.R.bond of Rs. 25,000/- subject to conditions that she shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall attend the trial regularly. Bail in lower court. It is made clear that the above observations are in prima facie view of the matter and shall not influence the learned trial Judge while deciding the matter on merits. Hamdast granted. Application disposed of. JUDGE Rvjalit