Detention of applicant not necessary until crime is prima-facie proved: Bombay High Court

 on 06 05 2021 on 06 05 rpa 1 5 43 ba 1355 2021.docIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONBAIL APPLICATION NO.1355 OF 2021Papu Ashok Waghela.. Applicant VersusState of Maharashtra.. Respondent…...Mr.Sayyed A. Abbas a w. Ms.Anamika Tiwari i b. Mr.Datta Mane Advocate for the Applicant.Mr.A.R. Kapadnis APP for the Respondent State.…... CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK J.DATED :MAY 05th 2021.P.C. : The applicant is arrested on 18th November 2019 inconnection with C.R.No.2519 registered with Pydhoniepolice station Mumbai for the ofence punishable under Section302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Codewas registered.Investigation proceeded.3Statement of Jitendra Lohana was recorded on 17thNovember 2019. He is soninlaw of the applicant. According tohim on 17th November 2019 he had visited the house of theapplicant. The door was closed. He pushed the door and wentinside. His sisterinlaw was found lying on the foor. His motherinlawwas at her feet. His brotherinlaw AakashWaghela was strangulating the victim with the help of odhani bypressing her neck. The son of the applicant Aakash Waghela wasarrested. Statement of Akshay Waghela was recorded on 19thNovember 2019. He stated that the victim was having afair withAjay Parmar. The family tried to convince the victim todiscontinue her relationship with the said person. There werefrequent quarrels between the victim applicant and theWWW.LIVELAW.IN on 06 05 2021 on 06 05 rpa 3 5 43 ba 1355 2021.docelder brother of the victim. On 17th November 2019 he foundthat there was quarrel between the victim applicant and hisbrother. He noticed that his elder brother Aakash came out ofhouse crying and he told him that he along with his mother haskilled the victim. Statement of Sonam Jitendra Lohana wasrecorded on 22nd November 2019. He has stated that victim is hersister. On account of quarrel she suspected that her mother(applicant) and brotherhas killed the victim bystrangulating her with dhupatta odhani. 4The submission of the learned counsel for theapplicant is that the incident had occurred all of sudden. It wasnot pre planned. The role of strangulation is not attributed toapplicant. The victim was the daughter of the applicant. The eyewitness has attributed the role of strangulation by odhani to theco accused.5Learned APP however submitted that the frstinformant has categorically stated that the applicant had visitedpolice station and she had disclosed that she killed her daughter.Station diary entry in that regard also recorded on 17thNovember 2019. The applicant was admittedly present in thehouse at the time of incident.WWW.LIVELAW.IN on 06 05 2021 on 06 05 rpa 4 5 43 ba 1355 2021.doc6From the documents it appears that the victim is thedaughter of the applicant. Victim was having love afair with oneboy. The applicant and the brother of the victim were against thesaid relationship. The victim was trying to run away from thehouse with her clothes. She was caught by the family members and brought back to her home. The statement of eye witnessmention that the co accused was found strangulating the victim and the applicant was standing at the feet of the victim. Theapplicant is lady. Considering the factual aspects furtherdetention of the applicant is not necessary.7Hence I pass the following order O R D E R ::(i)Bail Application No.13521 is allowed (ii)Applicant is directed to be released on bail inconnection with C.R.No.2519 registered withPydhonie police station Mumbai on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.25 000 with one or moresureties in the like amount (iii)Applicant shall attend trial Court regularly on thedate of hearing unless exempted by Court WWW.LIVELAW.IN on 06 05 2021 on 06 05 rpa 5 5 43 ba 1355 2021.doc(iv)Applicant is permitted to furnish provisional cashbail security in the sum of Rs.25 000 for a periodof eight weeks in lieu of surety (vi)Bail Application No.13521 stands disposed ofaccordingly. (PRAKASH D. NAIK J.)WWW.LIVELAW.IN 

Summary: Bail may be granted to an individual who is accused of a cognizable offence, if the crime alleged against him/her is not prima facie proved. A single judge bench comprising of Justice Prakash D Naik, while adjudicating the matter in Papu Ashok Waghela v. State of Maharashtra; [BAIL APPLICATION NO.1355 OF 2021], dealt with the issue of granting bail to an accused alleged to have committed the offence of murder under the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that, on a certain day the complainant was on duty at the police station. The applicant visited police station and informed the police that her daughter was leaving the house with her clothes. She was caught by her and brought back in the house. With the help of odhani, she was strangulated and killed. The police visited the spot and found that the daughter of the applicant aged about 23 years was found dead. During inquiry, it was revealed that the victim was in love with a boy, and, her family was against the said relationship. While the victim was trying to run away from the house with her clothes, she was caught and brought home. There was quarrel between them at that time. She was killed by strangulation. Ligature marks were noticed on the body of the victim. An FIR was registered in respect of the same. The learned counsel for the applicant stated that the incident had occurred all of sudden. It was not pre-planned. The role of strangulation is not attributed to applicant. The victim was the daughter of the applicant. The eye witness has attributed the role of strangulation by odhani to the co-accused. As per the public prosecutor, the informant had categorically stated that the applicant had visited the police station and she had disclosed that she killed her daughter The Court upon considering the aforesaid facts stated that “From the documents it appears that the victim is the daughter of the applicant. Victim was having love affair with one boy. The applicant and the brother of the victim were against the said relationship. The victim was trying to run away from the house with her clothes. She was caught by the family members, and, brought back to her home. The statement of eye witness mention that the co-accused was found strangulating the victim, and, the applicant was standing at the feet of the victim. The applicant is lady. Considering the factual aspects, further detention of the applicant is not necessary.” The Court thus granted bail to the applicant after relying on the eye-witness statements, with a few conditions imposed.