SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Bom) 1273

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
A. P. BHANGALE, J.
Ratnaprabha w/o. Dr. Ramakant Nilkanthrao Ghuge (Pangrekar)
Vs.
State
Criminal Application (ABA) No. 230 of 2012.
Decided On : 16th July, 2012.

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. SHYAM DEWANI, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. S.S. DOIFODE, APP for State.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Grant of anticipatory bail - Where material collected during investigation showedprima facie involvement of applicant - Sarpanch of village in offence punishable under Section 302, IPC therefore applicant not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail.

       Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Grant of anticipatory bail. - Courts required to evaluate carefully and with meticulous precision facts of case so as to exercise discretion on basis of available material and facts of particular case.

JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State. Perused the application, reply filed by the State and rejoinders filed by the applicant as also documents filed below Criminal Application No.709 of 2012.

2. Applicant is seeking prearrest bail in Crime No.2/12 registered with Police Station, Malegaon District Washim for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201, 435, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 & 25 of the Arms Act.

3. Applicant had moved before the Sessions Judge, Washim vide Misc. Crimina Application 284 of 2012 in which she had prayed for interim anticipatory bail also. That prayer was rejected and, therefore, applicant filed Criminal Application (ABA) No.204 of 2012 before this Court. This Court (brother M.N.Gilani, J) on observing that main application was still pending, did not entertain the application and expected the learned Sessions Judge to decide the application of the applicant finally by 8.6.2012. Learned Sessions Judge, Washim dismissed main application vide order dated 8.6.2012 and this is how the applicant is before this Court. This Court vide order dated 27.6.2012 (sister Smt.Sadhana S. Jadhav, J) has directed release of the applicant on interim anticipatory bail in the event of applicant's arrest on PR Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties in the like amount and with further condition that applicant shall surrender her Passport to the Investigating Officer and she shall report to the 1.0. everyday commencing from 29th July, 2012 between 03.00 and 5.00 p.m.

4. Facts as are contained in the application are applicant's husband who is a qualified doctor has worked in UK for a considerable period as ENT Surgeon. After his retirement, he and applicant decided to settle down at their native village Pangrabandi, Tahsil Malegaon, District Washim. Applicant has devoted herself to social service and she is Sarpanch of village Pangrabandi. It is further averred that on 18th December, 20 II, nephew of the applicant (her sister's son) Mahesh Bade met with an accident as his vehicle "Maruti Gypsi" fell down in a ghat near village Pangrabandi. Offences under Sections 279, 427, 304A of the Indian Penal Code were registered with Police Station, Malegaon vide Crime No.195/11. However, later on, father of deceased Mahesh lodged a complaint alleging that it was a homicidal death (murder) upon which offences punishable under Section 302, 201, 435, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 & 25 of the Arms Act came to be registered. Along with the names of her husband and two sons, name of the applicant was also subsequently added as one of the accused persons. It is stated that offence under Section 302 IPC is not attracted so far as applicant is concerned and her custodial interrogation is also not necessary. She claims that she is innocent and at the relevant time, she was attending a function organized by Wanjari Samaj Sewa Parishad of Washim District on account of Bhagwan Baba Punya Tithi.

Note: At this state when learned APP was asked as to whether pursuant to the order of interim anticipatory bail passed by this Court, the applicant has furnished interim anticipatory bail and whether she was arrested, he is not in a position to make specific statement. Similarly, learned counsel for the applicant regrets his inability to make a specific statement. He, however, states upon instructions that applicant has submitted 7112 extracts to the Investigating Officer and that till yesterday, applicant has attended the I.O. as per the direction of this Court. Since neither learned APP nor learned counsel for the applicant is able to make specific statement and I.O. is also absent, applicant and I.O. are directed to remain present before this Court on 18.7.2012 at 10.30 am when further and final order will follow.

Stand over to 18.7.2012.

Further and final order:

(in continuation with order dt.16.7.2012)

5. He







































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top