1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3760 OF 2009 Sushila W/o.Vitthal Shinde, Aged-72 years, Occu-NIL, R/o.Loni, Tq.Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through the Police Station Officer, Police Station Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad RESPONDENT Mr.S.S.Dhage (Patil), learned counsel for applicant. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned APP for State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 27/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court to release her on bail in connection with CR No.59/2009, registered in Paranda Police Station of District Osmanabad for an offence u/s. 302 r/w.34 of IPC. 2. Heard advocate for applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP for State. Also perused the papers of investigation as the charge sheet is already filed and the case is also committed to the 2 Court of Sessions, at Osmanabad. 3. During the course of submissions across the bar, two points urged before me. 1) As the investigation is over, there is no likelihood of tampering of the prosecution witnesses, and 2) the motive behind the present offence as disclosed in the complaint that after the demise of husband of the complainant Anjani Somnath Shinde, who is also the victim in the present crime, demanded her share in the property to the mother in law and brother in law. But they denied and on 02/06/2009, when she was insisting for partition, she was assaulted by the applicant and her brother in law and thereafter the applicant brought the kerosene can which was lying inside the house, the brother in law poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. To defuse this motive, during the course of submissions across the bar, mutation entry of the year 2008 and changed 7/12 extract of the year 2007-08 were placed in my hand to show that out of 6 acres ancestral property, 3 acre property was already given in possession of deceased and her two daughters, which according to advocate for applicant destroyed the motive as coloured in the complaint. It is also urged across the bar that the age of the applicant is 72 years old. Thus she is of advanced age. In the premise she be released on bail. 5. Application is opposed by learned APP on the ground that there is direct evidence of complainant herself on whose statement, the offence was registered. In the premise, if there is direct nexus 3 between the act and role played by the applicant, and the death of the deceased, the applicant is not entitled to enlarge on bail. 6. In the light of all these submissions advanced across the bar, and on perusal of the papers of investigation, particularly the complaint, the germane of the quarrel took place between the complainant and her brother in law and mother in law is the partition of ancestral property which is likely to come to her share after demise of her husband. This motive was destroyed from the revenue record placed in my hand which shows that the partition is effected way back before the incident occurred. Apart from it, the role played by this applicant as disclosed in the complaint is minimum than the role played by her son, the brother in law of the deceased who poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire and prior to that she was assaulted on her head by stick. In the premise, considering the role played by the applicant in the alleged offence as well as her advanced age, the application require following order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicant be released on bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. After releasing on bail, applicant is directed not to contact or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.appl.3760-09