Partly allowed

Manikbua Ghanshyam Bharti and Ors. v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC23 Feb 2011APPLN/270/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court released applicants, father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased, on bail. Court allowed application partly, ordering release via P.R. bond and surety with conditions to cooperate with investigation and attend court, noting seriousness of accusations against them.

What did the court decide?

Applicants 1 and 2 released on furnishing P.R. bond and surety of Rs. 20,000 each; ordered to cooperate with investigation and attend court.

Manikbua Ghanshyam Bharti and Ors. Vs the State of Mah — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Application No.270/2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.270 OF 2011

¶5

Manikbua s/o Ghanshyam Bharti and others ... APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT

¶6

Shri S.P. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for applicants Shri K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent

¶7

CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.

¶8

DATE : 23rd February, 2011

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

Heard. On instructions, counsel withdraws application of applicant No.3 Umabai w/o Ghyanshyam Bharti. Permitted.

¶11

The accused/ applicant Nos.1 and 2 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. In her dying declaration, the deceased has informed the police, on 21.12.2010, while she was performing household activities, her husband came, warned her to bring Rs.30,000/- from her parents to ensure purchase of buffalo by

¶12

her husband. At such time, he started abusing. At around 1.00 o’clock, it is alleged, applicant No.2 Laxmibai, mother-in-law instigated her husband to immolate the victim. In the same breath,

¶13

¶14

Criminal Application No.270/2011

¶15

the father-in-law Manikbua also asked his son (husband of the deceased Deubai) to ignite Deubai. In the second dying declaration also, identical role is indicated. The accused/ applicant Nos.1 and 2 are in custody from 24.12.2010 and 27.12.2010. Nothing is to be recovered from them. Investigation is virtually complete. The role attributed is indicated hereinabove. Though the nature of accusations are grave in its character, however, considering ages of the accused/ applicants, stage of investigation, the further custody is not warranted. Hence order :

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

(i) The accused/ applicant Nos.1 and 2 Manikbua s/o Ghanshyam Bharti and Laxmibai w/o Manikbua Bharti be released on furnishing P.R. bond and surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/(Rupees twenty thousand) each.

¶18

(ii) After release, the accused/ applicant Nos.1 and 2 shall co-operate the investigator whenever so commanded. They will scrupulously attend Court proceedings.

¶19

Application partly allowed as above.

¶20

K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE

¶21

fmp/cri270.2011

Manikbua Ghanshyam Bharti and Ors. v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikbua Ghanshyam Bharti and Ors. v. the State of Mah

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

Pandurang Ananda Dhole and Anr. Vs the State of Mah

Dharamendra Indarsingh @ Sattar Bhosale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravindra Sakharam Kanade Vs the State of Mah

Anil Revensidha Marbe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Uttam Popat Chilgar Vs the State of Mah

Kudalik Bajirao Mule Vs the State of Maharashtra