[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO.234 OF 2008 IN APPEAL NO.195 OF 2008 Sangeeta Subhash Mukharji ..Applicant [Ori.Accused No.1] Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.Naveen Chomal Advocate for Applicant Mrs.V.R.Bhosale APP for State ... CORAM:F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM:F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM:F.I.REBELLO AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE :APRIL 7, 2008 DATE :APRIL 7, 2008 DATE :APRIL 7, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. The Applicant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC. The Applicant is now seeking bail. 2. The Applicant is a lady and she was on bail during the trial. The evidence on record shows that the Applicant and deceased Amitabh were in love with each other and they wanted to get married. However, there was opposition to the [-2-] marriage from the parents of Amitabh. Deceased Amitabh was found hanging from the ceiling fan in the hotel room. The prosecution has relied upon the fact that the Applicant was in the hotel room with Amitabh. The prosecution has also relied on the evidence of Dr.Babasaheb Sorte who has stated that the death was not by hanging. However, it is pertinent to note that same Doctor has stated that in case of hanging for a short period, ligature marks would not be on the body. The learned advocate for the Applicant has submitted that it is pertinent to note that there were no injury marks on the body of Amitabh and had it been the case of murder by strangulation, there would certainly have appeared some injury marks on the body of Amitabh. He further submitted that it cannot be possible for the applicant lady alone to have murdered Amitabh by strangulation and thereafter to hang his body from the ceiling fan. He submitted that this shows that the applicant has been falsely implicated. 3. The learned Advocate for the applicant further submitted that the Applicant is a lady and she was on bail during the trial. She has not misused the liberty granted to her. This statement has not [-3-] been controverted by the prosecution. Looking to the evidence on record, prima facie we find some merit in the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the Applicant. Hence, we are inclined to grant bail. 4. During the pendency of the appeal, Applicant-Sangita Subhash Mukharji be released on bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. twenty thousand only) with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. During the pendency of this appeal, the applicant shall report to Narpoli Police Station, Bhiwandi once in three months. 5. Application is disposed of accordingly. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ F.I.REBELLO, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ F.I.REBELLO, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ F.I.REBELLO, J.]