1 ABA 1028-11.odt Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1028 OF 2011 Jennifer Oliver Erasmus .Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent Ms Roseline R. Nadar , Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.S.Asif A.Nagri, Advocate, for the First Informant Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for the Respondent - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 23RD DECEMBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail by 59 years old woman,who apprehends arrest in connection with C.R.No.12 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 406, 420, 464, 467, 468, 471 & 472 of the Indian Penal Code registered with M.H.B.Police Station 2 ABA 1028-11.odt and who was supposed to be living with deceased Ivan Erasmus when his wife was very much alive and staying Vasai. Ivan Erasmus died on 21st January, 2009. A complaint in respect of murder of Ivan Erasmus came to be filed on 10th November, 2011. Since the learned counsel for the applicant was not available for addressing me, I have heard the learned counsel for the first informant at sufficient length and could gather facts. Facts gathered show that the applicant was living with the deceased. She claimed that the deceased had fallen while having his food when in fact, he had fallen down in bathroom. His body was buried after three days of his death, since his daughter was to come. However, no complaint of any sort was made till then. The complaints were made only after the applicant started dillydallying about vacating the flat in which she was residing with the deceased and sought probate of will before the High Court which was objected to by the 3 ABA 1028-11.odt first informant and others. In this context, the complaint was made on 10th November, 2011. The learned counsel for the first informant states that unless the applicant is subjected to custodial interrogation the mystery surrounding the death of Ivan Erasmus would not be solved and the cause for applicant's activity in setting up of Will after she had, in fact, agreed to transfer of the flat in the name of sons of the deceased would not be resolved. I have recorded the facts which have been gathered at adequate length only to indicate that these facts would not show any need for custodial interrogation of the applicant as of now. Should any evidence about applicant's complicity in murder of the deceased be unearthed. The investigating officer would always be justified in seeking cancellation of this order from this Court. In view of this, applicant be released on bail on his furnishing P.R.Bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in 4 ABA 1028-11.odt the aggregate sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on the following conditions. (i) The applicant shall report at the M.H.B.Police Station on 29th December, 2011 at 11.00 a.m. and thereafter, as and when required by the investigating officer. The applicant shall produce all the original relevant documents before the investigating officer. The applicant shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses. (ii) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (iii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the trial Court. . The order will remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if charge sheeted the applicant may furnish fresh bonds before the trial Court in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 2011 (SC) 312(Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of 5 ABA 1028-11.odt Maharashtra And Ors.). 4. Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)