1 Cri-A-5014-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5014 OF 2010 IN C.R.No. 149 of 2010 (Bhandup Police Station) IN Sessions Case No. 560 of 2010 Mohamed Naeem Khan Nabi Mohamed Khan ... Petitioner (Orig.Accused No.2) Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr.D.M.Manoharan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Smt. P.P.Bhosale, APP, for the respondent - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 1st December, 2010. P.C. 1. The petitioner, who is accused in Crime No.149/2010 registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, has preferred this Application for bail. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP. Perused the relevant police papers as well as the statement of Jannatunisa, wife of the present applicant recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the Metroplitan 2 Cri-A-5014-10.sxw Magistrate. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant and Jannatunisa were married about 5 years before the incident in this case. It was second marriage of the present applicant. After the marriage, Jannatunsa gave birth to two children - first was a female child and second was a male. According to the prosecution, on 29.4.2010, the applicant and his wife had brought their daughter to Mulund General Hospital in unconscious condition. On examination, the doctor declared her dead before admission. At that time, it was noticed that there was a ligature mark around her neck. Therefore, it was initially registered as a case of unnatural death and the dead body was referred for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem examination revealed that the death was because of strangulation. There were also ligature marks around the neck. During investigation, it was revealed that during the previous night i.e. 28.4.2010, their daughter Ashrafunnisa had urinated near the bed of her father. Due to this, his bed became wet. The applicant got annoyed on this and beat the child. It was stated by the neighbours that parents used to beat the daughter. In view of the circumstance, a report was lodged by PSI Vasant Halde and the offence of murder came to be registered. Initially, the present applicant and his wife both were accused and were arrested. During interrogation, Jannatuisa, the wife of the 3 Cri-A-5014-10.sxw present applicant, disclosed that since after the birth of the daughter, the applicant was not happy. On many occasions, he had expressed his suspicion that the child was born out of her relationship with some other person and he was not the father. She also stated that the applicant used to beat and ill-treat the daughter. She also disclosed that in the night of 28.4.2010, the daughter had urinated near the bed of the father, due to which he got annoyed and beat her. After that incident, they went to sleep. In the morning, when the wife was heating milk, she noticed that the accused had a rope in his hand and he strangulated the daughter with the same. When she tried to intervene, the accused also threatened to kill her with a long knife used for cutting coconut. Therefore, she kept quiet. Thereafter the accused left the house leaving the child in the house. The wife thereafter carefully saw the child and found that she had become cold. Then she began to weep. Many people of the locality came. At that time the accused also came back. Then he along with other persons took the dead body of the daughter to the hospital where the child was declared dead. 4. The deceased was a child aged 3 years. She was in the house along with father, mother and a small brother. No third person had come to the house. The child was found murdered by strangulation. Naturally, the suspicion will go the parents. The mother has given the above circumstance in her statement before 4 Cri-A-5014-10.sxw the police as well as in the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. This prima facie, shows that the accused/applicant had committed murder of the child. If the applicant is granted bail, there is every possibility that he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may certainly influence his wife who is the only eye-witnss of the incident. In view of these circumstances, I find that it will not be in the interest of justice to grant bail to the applicant pending the trial. 5. Therefore, the Application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)