Allowed

Aarati @ Madhu Saroj Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC27 Oct 2015BA/1202/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application filed by an accused in a murder case involving suspicious death and fire. The High Court allowed bail subject to stringent conditions given the lack of direct evidence and circumstantial nature of the prosecution case.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement on bail on executing PR Bond of Rs. 20,000/- with sureties and subject to eight specific conditions including weekly police appearances and prohibition from leaving Mumbai.

Aarati @ Madhu Saroj Jadhav Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

BA 1202-15.doc

¶2

Anand

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1202 OF 2015

¶5

Smt. Aarati alias Madhu Saroj
Jadhav

¶6

.Applicant

¶7

 v/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra .Respondent

¶9

Mr.B.J.Sarwade, Advocate, for the Applicant
Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent – State

¶10

CORAM:REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶11

DATE :27.10.2015

¶12

P.C.

¶13

.Heard learned counsel for the applicant

¶14

and the learned APP for the respondent – State.

¶15

2.By this application, the applicant

¶16

seeks her enlargement on bail in connection with

¶17

C.R.No.535 of 2014 registered with the Santacruz
Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged offences
punishable under Sections 201, 302 & 328 of the

¶18

Indian Penal Code.

¶19

1 of 8

¶20

BA 1202-15.doc

¶21

3.The incident in question has taken

¶22

place on 12.09.2014 at about 1.45 p.m. in the
afternoon. The complainant is one Raju Brahma
Sharma, a neighbour, residing near the room
where the alleged incident had taken place.

¶23

According to him, when he was on his way to
visit his friend, he noticed that several people
had gathered outside Room No.129, Indira Nagar.

¶24

He, therefore, went near the said room and

¶25

noticed that smoke was coming out of the said
room and that the door was locked from outside.

¶26

Hence, with the help of his friends, they broke
open the lock and entered the room. They noticed

¶27

that one person was wrapped in a cotton mattress
and that smoke was coming from within. Police
came on the spot and all extinguished the fire

¶28

by sprinkling water. They noticed that the said

¶29

person was without clothes and that he was
strangulated with a rope. Pursuant to the same,

¶30

the aforesaid complaint came to be lodged as

¶31

2 of 8

¶32

BA 1202-15.doc

¶33

against unknown person/s.

¶34

4. Learned counsel for the applicant

¶35

submits that the entire prosecution case rests
on circumstantial evidence. He submits that

¶36

there is no material qua the applicant to
connect her with the alleged offences, in the
form of last seen, motive etc. He submits that
there is an alleged recovery of the police batch
and an identity card of the deceased, at the
applicant's instance. He submits that apart from
the said evidence, there is no other material
against the applicant.

¶37

5.LearnedAPPopposedthebail

¶38

application. He does not dispute that the case
rests on circumstantial evidence. He submits
that there are witnesses, who have identified
the present applicant; one Javed Khan, who had
given the said room on rent to the applicant on

¶39

3 of 8

¶40

BA 1202-15.doc

¶41

05.09.2014. According to the said witness, the

¶42

room was given on rent pursuant to an oral
agreement; and the other two witnesses Nagraj
Shetty and Vishwakarma, had seen the present
applicant on 10.09.2014, two days prior to the
incident taking the mattress in an Auto Rickshaw
and going towards one lane. She submits that
there are CDR records to show that the applicant
and the deceased were in touch with each other,
however not on that day and time.

¶43

6.Perused the charge-sheet. Admittedly,

¶44

the prosecution case rests on circumstantial

¶45

evidence. It appears that there is no motive, at
this stage, which has come on record against the

¶46

applicant. The person, who has identified the
present applicant i.e. Javed Khan states that he

¶47

had given a room where the body was found to the
applicant on 05.09.2014. There is no documentary
evidence in support of the same. Similarly, the

¶48

4 of 8

¶49

BA 1202-15.doc

¶50

other two witnesses, who have identified the
present applicant have stated that they had seen
the applicant, two days prior to the incident,
traveling in an Auto Rickshaw carrying the
mattress. It appears that the CDR records, do
not prima facie, show the location of the
applicant at the spot, at the time when the
alleged incident took place. The only material
as against the applicant appears to be recovery
of police batch and the identity card of the
deceased. Learned APP states that the applicant
is a resident of Bihar and has no permanent
residence in Maharashtra. Learned counsel for
the applicant submits that stringent conditions
may be imposed in the event, this Court comes to
the conclusion that a case for bail is made out.

¶51

7.Considering what is stated above, the
application is allowed and the applicant is
enlarged on bail on the following terms &

¶52

5 of 8

¶53

BA 1202-15.doc

¶54

conditions:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail, on

¶57

executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with
one or two local sureties in the like amount;

¶58

(ii) The applicant shall attend the

¶59

Santacruz Police Station, Mumbai on every
Wednesday and Sunday between 10:00 a.m. to 11:00
a.m. till the conclusion of the trial;

¶60

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper or

¶61

attempt to influence or contact the complainant,

¶62

witnesses or any person concerned with the case;

¶63

(iv) The applicant shall inform her latest

¶64

place of residence and mobile contact number
within two weeks of her release and/or change

¶65

of residence or mobile details, if any, from
time to time to the Court seized of the matter
and to the Investigating Officer of the
concerned Police Station;

¶66

6 of 8

¶67

BA 1202-15.doc

¶68

(v) The applicant to cooperate with the

¶69

conduct of the trial;

¶70

(vi)The applicant shall not leave Mumbai

¶71

city without the prior permission of the trial
Court;

¶72

(vii)An undertaking to the aforesaid clauses

¶73

(ii); (iii); (iv); (v); and (vi), shall be filed
by the applicant, in the trial Court, within two

¶74

weeks of her release;

¶75

(viii) If there is a breach of any of the

¶76

aforesaid conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to seek cancellation of the
applicant's bail.

¶77

aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.

¶78

9. It is made clear that the observations

¶79

made herein are prima facie, and the trial Court

¶80

shall decide the case on its own merits, in

¶81

accordance with law, uninfluenced by the

¶82

7 of 8

¶83

BA 1202-15.doc

¶84

observations made in this order.

¶85

All concerned to act on the
authenticated copy of this order.

¶86

 (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

¶87

8 of 8

Aarati @ Madhu Saroj Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aarati @ Madhu Saroj Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh Ashok Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kamil Mustafa Shaikh @ Raju Bhai Vs the State of Maharashtra

Javed Ibrahim Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mubarak Lalsab Nadaf Vs the State of Maharashtra

Babalu Dukhbandhu Shahoo Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajay Bhagoji Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra