Dismissed

Monika Kiran Suryawanshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Jun 2009APPLN/1341/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Application seeking suspension of life imprisonment and bail pending appeal against conviction and sentence for murder was rejected. Court cited established circumstances proving guilt and held interest of justice did not warrant granting bail despite personal hardships.

What did the court decide?

Application for suspension of sentence and enlargement on bail rejected; appeal set down for hearing.

Monika Kiran Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1341 OF 2009

¶5

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.61 OF 2008

¶7

Monika Kiran Suryawanshi .. Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶10

Shri A.H.Kapadia, Advocate appearing for Shri V.M.Damle, Advocate for applicant

¶11

Shri N.N.Jadhav, APP for respondent-State

¶12

CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ

¶13

DATE : 15th JUNE, 2009

¶14

PER COURT :

¶15

It appears that the present applicant who was original accused No.1 in the trial Court and who has filed Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2008 and stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section

¶16

¶17

302 read with 34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default stipulation of undergoing further rigorous imprisonment for six months in the event of non-payment of fine, and imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default condition of undergoing further rigorous imprisonment for six months and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default condition of undergoing further rigorous imprisonment for three months in the event of non-payment of fine, respectively, had filed Criminal Application No.834 of 2008 in this Court seeking suspension of the substantive sentence of imprisonment and praying for her enlargement on bail pending the decision of this appeal. It further appears that the aforesaid Criminal Application, viz., Criminal Application No.834 of 2008 came to be rejected by this Court by its order dated 9.4.2008. The applicant being aggrieved by the rejection of her bail application, filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal 1322 of 2009) in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has passed the following order :

¶18

“ Delay condoned.

¶19

Having heard Mr.Sinha, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved if it is directed that, for any of the reasons stated in sub-para (h) of para 3 of the Special Leave Petition, the petitioner will be at liberty to move the High

¶20

¶21

Court. It is ordered accordingly.

¶22

The Special Leave Petition is dismissed with the aforementioned observations.”

¶23

Thus, the applicant, pursuant to the liberty granted by the Supreme Court of filing an application afresh has filed Criminal Application No.1341 of 2009. Before we advert to the circumstances appearing against the applicant/accused and deal with the submissions advanced before us by Shri Kapadia, learned Counsel for the applicant, it would be useful to refer to sub-para (h) of Paragraph 3 of the Special Leave Petition.

¶24

“(h) That apart, that it needed to be seen that the petitioner had married Kiran against the wishes of her family and there was no reason for her to stoop to murder. The judgment appealed from has further not considered the resultant plight arising out of the curtailment of liberty of the petitioner who is under arrest since 15.2.2007. She has young daughter nearly aged 4 years. No one among the relatives is willing to take her responsibility particularly with the kind of allegations leveled against the petitioner. The mother of the petitioner was helping her to some extent in looking after her daughter, but now she herself is suffering from severe ill health on account of her age and disease of uterus. She has been advised Hysterectomy. Neglect of the child and her well being now stares in a telling and pathetic manner. The judgment appealed from ought to have considered this aspect which was

¶25

¶26

stressed on behalf of the petitioner. In any event, considering the pendency of such criminal appeal ranges from 4 to 5 years time, the bail was in the interest of justice.”

¶27

Shri Kapadia, learned Counsel for the applicant has urged before us that the applicant has been convicted with the aid of Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It is urged before us that there is no evidence worth the name in respect of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as in support of the charge for an offence punishable under Section 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The circumstances, according to Shri Kapadia, learned Counsel for the applicant do not, prima facie, establish the offence against the applicant and, therefore, the applicant is entitled for suspension of the sentence of imprisonment and her enlargement on bail pending the decision of this appeal. It is urged by Shri Kapadia, learned Counsel for the applicant that on account of ill health of the mother of the applicant and with the ailment with which she is suffering as well as the circumstance that there is no one to look after the minor child of the present applicant, a strong case has been made out by the applicant for suspension of substantive sentence of imprisonment. Shri Jadhav, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has urged before us that the trial Court has accepted the evidence and from the Judgment of the trial Court, it appears that several circumstances appeared against the present applicant which prima facie establish the commission of the offence against the applicant.

¶28

¶29

It appears that the following circumstances appeared against the applicant/accused :

¶30

(i) Evidence of P.W.13 Jitendra discloses that accused No.2 had shown a photograph of accused No.1 in his computer and had informed him of accused No.1 being his lover though accused No.1, i.e the applicant was a married woman;

¶31

(ii) Evidence of P.W.18 discloses that certain gift had been received by accused No.2 from accused No.1;

¶32

(iii) Discovery of Chappals and clothes of accused No.1 in presence of P.W.3;

¶33

(iv) Discovery of a grinding stone and other articles which were found stained with blood of group “A” i.e the blood group which matched the blood group of deceased.

¶34

It is also urged by Shri Kapadia that another circumstance is of deceased being last seen alive in the company of the accused.

¶35

Thus, the perusal of the aforesaid circumstances, at this prima facie stage disclose the involvement of the accused in the present case. It would be impermissible for us to reappreciate the evidence at this juncture to determine, if any of the circumstance stand proved

¶36

¶37

by the prosecution. Suffice it to say that the trial Court has accepted the evidence against the applicant completing the chain of the circumstances pointing inexorably to the guilt of the accused. We further find that the applicant was not on bail during trial. Presently, we are already hearing appeals of the year 2007-2008 and since paper book in this appeal is ready, we direct that the appeal be set down for hearing in the week commencing from 6^th July 2009.

¶38

After giving our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced before us by the learned Counsel for the applicant, we are unable to accede to the request of the applicant for suspending the substantive sentence of imprisonment and enlarge her on bail pending the decision of the appeal. We, however, direct that the present appeal be set down for hearing in the week commencing from 6^th July 2009 subject to any overnight part heard matter. Application rejected.

¶39

( R.K. DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.)

¶40

(vvr/criappln1341.09)

¶41

Monika Kiran Suryawanshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monika Kiran Suryawanshi v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashant Subhash Desarda Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Smita Sanjivan Molwane Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Maroti Narayanrao Pisal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Kalawati Tukaram Kurhe Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dnyaneshwar Chintaman Patil Vs the State of Mah

The Central Excise and Customs Department through Its Commissioner Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others