1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3715 OF 2008 Ms.Maria Monica Susairaj .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.Harshad Phonda i/b G.S.Kannur & A.M.Moorthy for the applicant. Mrs.P.P.Shinde A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2008. DATED : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2008. DATED : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C.: . Heard Mr.Phonda, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs.Shinde, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.347 of 2008 of Malad police station, Mumbai which subsequently came to be transfered to D.C.B. C.I.D., Unit-9, Bandra, Mumbai. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and one another for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 302, 201 r/w 34, 120B of IPC. 3. It is the prosecution case that on 7th May, 2008 in the morning at about 7.30 am the applicant and her fiance - Emile Jerome killed Niraj Grover and 2 2 2 thereafter chopped his dead body into pieces and destroyed it by burning the same 80 kms. away from Mumbai near Manor on Bombay-Ahmedabad highway. 4. Mr.Phonda, learned counsel for the applicant after inviting my attention to the statements of Nishant Lal and Nisha Boridkar submitted that the applicant was in love with the deceased - Niraj and that they had stayed together for almost a week before the alleged incident and, therefore, there was no reason for the applicant to kill him (Niraj) with the help of her fiance. The applicant and Niraj knew each other since March, 2008. My attention was also invited to the confessional statement of the applicant and to the statement of Jerome, accused no.2 to contend that Jerome killed the deceased in the presence of the applicant and that the applicant was helpless in view of her engagement with Jerome and that she never intended to kill Niraj. He submitted that the applicant had extremely good relation with Niraj, and it is further clear from the statement of Mayuri Prajapati who has stated that the deceased was to give her role in T.V. serial. Mr.Phonda submitted that at the most the applicant could be held liable for punishment under section 201 for causing disappearance of evidence of the offence committed by accused no.2 and for giving false information to the 3 3 3 police to screen him. Mr.Phonda also invited my attention to the statements of Ajay Shyam Pandey and Vasant Kumar, both Naval officers and colleagues of accused no.2, and submitted that it is clear from their statements that accused no.2 had rushed to Mumbai because he found the applicant in a disturb state of mind over the issue of their marriage. 5. On the other hand Ms.Shinde, learned A.P.P. invited my attention to the very same statements which were referred to by Mr.Phonda and to the statement of one Haresh Kumar to contend that Jerome - accused no.2 came to Mumbai since he was called by the applicant and it is also clear from the statement of the applicant herself which was recorded during the missing complaint enquiry. She then submitted, there is sufficient material on record to show that during the fateful night, the applicant and Jerome made twenty phone calls to each other and at one point of time Jerome had spoken with Niraj also. In her statement, the applicant has stated that accused no.2 had informed her that he was rushing to Mumbai and would reach to her residence early in the morning on 8.5.2008. Despite this Ms.Shinde, learned A.P.P. submitted that she allowed the deceased to stay with her during that night. The alleged incident occurred in the morning when accused no.2 reached her home at 4 4 4 7.00 am in the morning. She further submitted that subsequent conduct of the applicant till the dead body of Niraj was chopped into pieces and burnt by both the accused further establish the intention of the applicant to eliminate Niraj from her life. She did not have confidence in Niraj that he would give her break and she had a feeling that he was exploiting her sexually. 6. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are motive, last seen together, applicant’s confession, visit of accused no.2 - Jerome to the residence of the applicant, disposal of dead body, presence of the deceased in the flat of the applicant, talk between both the accused on mobile phone on several occasion during the night of 7th and 8th May, 2008, subsequent conduct of the applicant and the statements of several witnesses to prove these circumstances. If the applicant was innocent, as contended by her learned counsel, she, knowing fully well that her fiance was reaching Mumbai early morning on 8th December, 2008, would not have allowed the deceased to stay with her and that too in her own bedroom. She would have cautioned and asked him to leave. The circumstance last seen together, presence of the deceased in the flat of the applicant 5 5 5 till the next day morning and visit of accused no.2 at her residence prima facie stand established on the basis of the statements of several witnesses. Mr.Phonda, in the course of arguments, did not disputed/challenged these circumstances. Similarly, if the applicant was innocent her subsequent conduct would have been different. As a matter of fact, her subsequent conduct is consistent with the prosecution case. After the alleged killing both the accused had sex when the dead body of Niraj was lying in the bedroom. In the afternoon she left her house for purchasing plastic bags, knife, room freshner etc. which were allegedly used for causing disappearance of the body of the deceased. Both the accused were seen by the watchmen of the building keeping plastic bags in a dicky of the car and then she led the police to the spot where the dead body was burn. This all together, in my opinion, is sufficient to show the complicity of the applicant in the present case. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge her on bail. Hence the application is rejected. . While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case without being influenced by the observations made in this order. 6 6 6 (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)