(1) Cri. Application No. 4096 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 4096 of 2011 Parighabai w/o. Babasaheb Bombale, Aged : 55 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Bombale Wasti, Gondhavani Shivar, Taluka : Shrirampur, District : Ahmednagar. .. Applicant. versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Shrirampur City Police Station, Taluka : Shrirampur, District : Ahmednagar. .. Respondent. ....................... Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate, with Mr. K.B. Autade, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. D.R. Korde, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent. ........................ (2) Cri. Application No. 4096 of 2011 CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 5TH OCTOBER 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Perused the investigation papers which were made available for inspection purpose, and heard learned respective Counsel for the parties, finally. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant, namely, Parighabai w/o. Babasaheb Bombale, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No. I-146/2011, registered at Police Station, Shrirampur (District : Ahmednagar), for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that the offence has been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, namely, Mohiniraj Rambhau Patare i.e. step-brother of the victim Sindhu, on 1-6-2011. It is alleged in the said complaint that his sister, namely, Sindhu, was married with Rajendra about ten years back and out of the said wedlock, three children, such as, daughter Shradha, aged 5 years; son Yash, aged 3 years, and son Tejas, aged 7 months, were born, and Sindhu's husband i.e. co-accused (3) Cri. Application No. 4096 of 2011 Rajendra used to work as driver and also used to carry on the business of sale and purchase of old vehicles. It is also alleged that he was addicted to consume liquor. There are allegations that the applicant, who is mother-in-law of the victim Sindhu, and the co-accused Rajendra used to make unlawful demand of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the victim Sindhu and used to ask her to bring the said amount from her parental home for the business of sale and purchase of vehicles. It is also alleged that they subjected her to physical and mental cruelty due to non-fulfillment of the said demand. It is also recited in the said complaint that prior to 15 days of lodging the complaint, deceased Sindhu was subjected to physical and mental torture on account of non-fulfillment of the unlawful demand of Rs. 3,00,000/-, and at that time, her father-in-law, namely, Babasaheb, intervened and released her. It is also alleged that the present applicant and co-accused Rajendra used to abuse the victim Sindhu and used to assault her frequently. 4. It is further stated in the said complaint, that on 1-6-2011 at about 6.00 a.m., the complainant received a telephone call from his maternal uncle, namely, Khanderao s/o. Jaywantrao Fuge, informing that Sindhu is expired. Accordingly, they rushed to her house and found that her dead body was kept in the house in covered condition. After removal of the cover, (4) Cri. Application No. 4096 of 2011 the complainant noticed that there were ligature marks on the neck of the dead body and there were signs of assault / injury on her person. Hence, he made enquiry with the neighbours and learnt that quarrel took place between victim Sindhu, and the applicant and co-accused husband Rajendra, and victim Sindhu was assaulted by the applicant and co-accused Rajendra. 5. On the aforesaid background, learned Counsel for the applicant canvassed that no statements of neighbours were recorded, except statement of one Archana Somnath Bomble, by the investigating agency, to connect the applicant with the alleged crime. Even it is stated that the statement of Archana is in respect of the allegations regarding Section 498A of IPC, and not beyond that. It is also canvassed by the learned Counsel for the applicant, that there are no allegations against the applicant herein to connect the applicant with the alleged crime, more particularly, under Section 302 of IPC. It is further canvassed that the applicant is a woman, and therefore, proviso of Section 437(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required to be invoked, as she is in custody since 1-6-2011. It is further submitted that there are three minor children, as mentioned herein above, and there is no lady member in the family to look after them. Besides, it is submitted that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed, and therefore, (5) Cri. Application No. 4096 of 2011 there is no propriety in keeping the applicant in custody furthermore, and hence, learned Counsel for the applicant urged that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 6. Learned APP, for the respondent, countered the said arguments and submitted that the post mortem report discloses that the victim Sindhu met with the homicidal death and cause of death given is, due to Asphyxia due to strangulation, and viscera is preserved for chemical analysis and histopathology, and final cause of death will be given after viscera report. It is submitted that the victim Sindhu met with unnatural death while she was in the custody of the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is further pointed out that there were injuries on the person of the victim, as described in clause 17 of the post mortem notes, which itself disclose that the victim Sindhu was assaulted before her death. It is further canvassed by the learned APP, that the offence levelled against the applicant is serious one, and although investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed, she does not deserve to be released on bail, and hence, urged that the present application be dismissed. 7. Considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it is material to note that although the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been (6) Cri. Application No. 4096 of 2011 filed, no statements of independent persons / neighbours have been recorded by the investigating agency, except the statement of one Archana Somnath Bomble, and the said statement, apparently, connects the applicant with the alleged crime under Section 498-A of IPC, which is bailable one. Moreover, it appears that the statements of other witnesses, namely, Khanderao s/o. Jayawantrao Fuge, Ramdas s/o. Sakharam Darekar, Shantabai @ Gayabai Rambhau Patare, Sunita Mohiniraj Patare, and Pradeep Tulshidas Paradkar, have been recorded by the investigating agency, but they are relatives of the victim Sindhu. Pertinently, even the statement of father-in- law of the victim, namely, Babasaheb also has not been recorded by the investigating agency. Moreover, it cannot be overlooked that about 10 years have been elapsed for the marriage between victim Sindhu and co-accused Rajendra. 8. Apart from that, the applicant is a woman aged about 55 years, and admittedly, there are three minor children of victim Sindhu, as referred herein above, who are to be looked after, and it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant, that there is no woman member in the family to look after them, and hence, proviso to Section 437(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, deserves to be invoked in the present case, in the interest of justice. Moreover, the investigation has been completed and (7) Cri. Application No. 4096 of 2011 charge sheet has been filed, and hence, there is no propriety in keeping the applicant in custody furthermore, and accordingly, she deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. In the result, present Criminal Application is allowed, and it is directed that the applicant, namely, Parighabai w/o. Babasaheb Bombale, be released on bail, in connection with Crime No. I-146/2011, registered at Police Station, Shrirampur (District : Ahmednagar), on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety in the like amount, on the condition that she shall not influence upon the witnesses and/or tamper with the evidence, in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, and present Criminal Application is disposed of finally. 10. However, it is made clear that the above observations are prima facie in nature, and same shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ka4096