{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2732 OF 2010 Indirabai w/o Yogiraj Rathod APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. R.N.Dhorde, Advocate for the applicant Mr. S.G.Nandedkar, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 2nd August 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has prayed to release her on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in connection with CR No.44/2010 registered with Akhada Balapur police station, Dist-Hingoli for an offence punishable u/s 302, 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by learned APP. 3. This offence is registered on the complaint of one {2} Ranjita Jadhav on 20.05.2010 in respect of an incident which has occurred in the intervening night of 18th and 19th May 2010. The applicant is the wife of deceased Yogiraj. It is alleged that deceased Yogiraj was found in hanging condition to a ceiling fan in his house, situated at Yedshi Tanda. It is further alleged that the applicant is residing separately along with her son, Santosh, as there was dispute between the applicant-wife and deceased- husband. It also appears that since long, the applicant and her son have accepted share in the ancestral property and were residing separately from the deceased. It is alleged that in the morning of 19th May 2010, the complainant received a message that her father is found in hanging condition and hence she rushed to the spot from Washim and noticed that her father was hanged to a ceiling fan. On seeing the condition of the body, the complainant suspected that he might have been hanged after killing him. This suspension is further corroborated by the Postmortem notes. Therefore, the offence came to be registered against unknown persons 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has urged that on reading the complaint it is clear that the applicant was and is residing separately from the deceased and the complaint is lodged against unknown persons. It is urged that as huge property was left by the deceased, including one school of which there was dispute between the applicant and the deceased in respect management of the said school, and as a suit was filed for recovery {3} of maintenance amount as after demise of said Yogiraj, sisters of the deceased are interested in the property of the deceased so also in the management of the school, they have filed certain affidavits and hence apprehending arrest the applicant is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. 5. With the assistance of the learned APP perused the papers of the investigation. It is rightly pointed out by learned APP that death of the deceased is a homicidal one, however at the same time, merely the death is a homicidal one, and there is previous litigation that does not mean that it prima facie shows link between the death and role of the applicant. On the contrary, papers of investigation clearly disclose that this case is based on circumstances. Though the statements of the witnesses disclose previous enmity / dispute between the applicant and deceased, yet these statements do not disclose that the applicant entered in the premises where incident has occurred, soon before the incident or after the incident or somebody has noticed the applicant coming out of the premises at the relevant time. If it is so and considering the fact that the house where the incident has occurred is situated in a crowded area, yet no witness disclose that the applicant was seen entering or coming out of the house at the relevant time, case is made out to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. Interim protection granted on 19th July 2010 is hereby confirmed and to {4} remain in force till filing of the charge sheet. Within mean time, the applicant to attend the concerned police station on written intimation, if required, for investigation. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2732-10 {5} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3036 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2732 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3037 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2731 OF 2010 Shantabai Bansi Jadhav & others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & Another RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate for applicants Mr.R.N.Dhorde, Advocate for original accused Mr. S.G.Nandedkar, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 2nd August 2010 PER COURT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants. 2. By these two applications, applicants, sisters of the deceased, intend to intervene in criminal applications No. 2731/2010 and 2732/2010, to oppose the same. Section 301 (2) of {6} the Criminal Procedure Code permits the original complainant to participate in criminal proceedings to assist APP during trial or every stage of proceedings, however this liberty is not given to others, who are having interest in the matter. Considering this legal position and as the present applicants are not complainant, they have no locus standi to intervene in the present applications. Consequently, the applications stand dismissed as not maintainable. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/criapln2732-10