BA-1153-2021.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1153 OF 2021

1.

Nasimabee w/o Jafar Khan

2.

Arbaj Khan s/o Jafar Khan

… Applicants

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

… Respondent

…

Mr. S. R. Bagal h/f Mr. B. N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for applicants.

Mr. N. T. Bhagat, APP for the respondent – State.

...

CORAM

:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

Reserved on

: 12.01.2022

Pronounced on : 01.02.2022

ORDER :-

.

Present applicants, who have been arrested in connection with

Crime No.503 of 2020 registered with Sadarbazar Police Station, Dist.

Jalna for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 316, 324, 143, 147,

148, 149, 427, 120(B), 201, 452, 109 of Indian Penal Code, are claiming

bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.

It will not be out of place to mention here that the earlier Bail

Application No.114 of 2021 filed by applicant No.1 was disposed of as

withdrawn by this Court on 17.02.2021.

(1)

BA-1153-2021.odt

3.

Heard learned Advocate Mr. S. R. Bagal holding for learned

Advocate Mr. B. N. Gadegaonkar for the applicants and learned APP Mr.

N. T. Bhagat for the respondent – State.

4.

It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicants that

the applicants have been falsely implicated. Applicant No.1 is an old

aged pardanashin lady, whereas the applicant No.2 is a young boy of 21

years. They have been unnecessarily kept behind the bars. The first

information report has been lodged by one Sayyad Majid on 10.08.2020

in respect of the incident that had allegedly taken place between 10.30

p.m. to 11.00 p.m. on 09.08.2020. It is alleged that the wife of the

informant has been murdered by the accused persons. Now, the

investigation is over and case has been committed to Court of Sessions

bearing Sessions Case No.157 of 2020. Perusal of the FIR as well as

entire charge-sheet would show that no admissible as well as credible

evidence has been collected as against present applicants. No specific

overt act has been attributed by the informant against them. Only the

child witnesses have given names. Co-accused have been released on

regular bail by this Court and, therefore, on the ground of parity, the

applicants are entitled to be released on bail. It would take long time

for the trial to stand. The possibility that the child witnesses being

tutored cannot be ruled out and the further detention of the applicants

(2)

BA-1153-2021.odt

would amount to pre-trial conviction. There is no progress in the trial

since withdrawal of application of applicant No.1. The applicants are

ready to abide by the terms of the bail.

5.

Per contra, the learned APP has strongly opposes the application

and submitted that there is evidence against the applicant. The wife of

the informant, who was pregnant on the day of incident, has been

brutally murdered. The postmortem report, column No.17, discloses

that there were 12 external injuries, which were caused due to sharp

edged weapon as well as blunt object. There were internal injuries and

the probable cause of death is stated to be head injury. As against

applicant No.1 it is stated that he had inflicted injury by knife and it is

seen from item No.9 in column No.17 that the medical officer has

opined that, that injury is possible by sharp edged weapon. As against

applicant No.2, it is the prosecution story that he assaulted deceased

with hammer. There are other wounds which can be said to have been

caused by such objects. The child witnesses are not so young. The

daughter of the deceased was aged 11, who has named applicant No.2

and gave specific role to him, whereas applicant No.1 has been referred

as “Jafar ki Aurat” and the role attributed to her is assault by knife.

Further, the CCTV footage from the camera of the informant himself has

been recovered and the panchanama would show that the present

(3)

BA-1153-2021.odt

applicants have been identified. Weapons have been used by th