Allowed

Smt. Sheetal Sanjay Bhosale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Nov 2021BA/1027/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay considered a bail application in a murder case involving poisoning. Examining prosecution circumstantial evidence, including a child's testimony and lack of post-mortem findings on poison, the judge concluded the applicant had established a prima facie case for bail as a woman with dependent children.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted in C.R. No. 1064 of 2019 on executing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with sureties.

Smt. Sheetal Sanjay Bhosale Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

70-BA-1027-2021.odt8

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1027 OF 2021

¶4

Smt. Sheetal Sanjay Bhosale …Applicant

¶5

Versus
State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶6

Ms. Kshitija G. Sarangi, for the Applicant.

¶7

Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP, for the State-Respondent.

¶8

 CORAM : V. G. BISHT, J.

¶9

 RESERVED ON : 26th October, 2021.
 PRONOUNCED ON : 15th November, 2021.

¶10

PC:-

¶11

.The present application has been moved by the applicant under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.1064 of
2019 registered with Wakad Police Station, District- Pune, for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 109, 120B of the Indian

¶12

Penal Code.

¶13

2It is the case of prosecution that PSI of Rajgad Police Station,
namely, S. V. Kadam lodged an FIR of accidental death registered No.
92/2019 about the death of Sanjay Pandurang Bhosale. After
completion of investigation it was found that the applicant was the wife

¶14

Rekha Patil 1/6

¶15

70-BA-1027-2021.odt8

¶16

of deceased. There were matrimonial disputes between them. It is
alleged that the deceased used to suspect the character of the applicant.
It also revealed that there was illicit relation of applicant and co-
accused, namely, Yogesh Kamalakar Kadam and both of them decided to
kill the deceased and accordingly on 07/11/2019 the applicant mixed
the poison in a glass of water. It is further alleged that thereafter both
the accused took the deceased to Pune-Satara Highway and threw the
body. Accordingly, FIR came to be registered.

¶17

3Ms. Sarangi, learned Counsel for the applicant, submits that the
case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Although, it is
alleged that the applicant gave poison to deceased in a glass of water
and caused his death but the postmortem report depicts altogether
different reason. According to learned Counsel, prosecution is relying
on the statement of son of deceased, who at the relevant time was 11
years old. However, the said statement does not prima-facie prove the
involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. The investigation
has been completed and charge-sheet is filed. There are no criminal
antecedents. The applicant is permanent resident of Pune having small
children, who are solely dependent on her. In such circumstances, the
present application deserves to be allowed, argued learned Counsel.

¶18

Rekha Patil 2/6

¶19

70-BA-1027-2021.odt8

¶20

4Mr. Dedhia, learned APP, on the other hand, would oppose the
submissions by contending that the deceased was in the company of
applicant. There is a statement of son of applicant which clearly shows
that his mother had given water to deceased and thereafter he fell down.
Thus, the circumstances clearly indicate the involvement of the applicant
in the offence. Having regard to the nature of offence, the application
does not deserve consideration, submitted learned APP.

¶21

5 Perused investigation papers. The case of prosecution, admittedly, rests on circumstantial evidence. As far as the circumstance of deceased having seen in the company of the applicant is concerned, there is only statement of applicant’s son, namely, Raj Bhosale, who at the relevant time was 11 years old. His statement is recorded on 20/11/2019. At para 11, he states that after the dinner was over, the deceased asked the applicant to bring water and accordingly the applicant gave glass of water. After consuming water his father uttered “ vl dk; ik.kh ykxr; ” (why the water is testing different) and immediately fell down. Thereafter, the applicant asked this witness to go to bedroom. Accordingly he went and after some time he heard voices of people. Except this, nothing is on record to show that the applicant was immediately thereafter seen in the company of deceased.

¶22

Rekha Patil 3/6

¶23

6Prosecution has also alleged that after the deceased collapsed,
applicant with the help of co-accused Yogesh took the dead body in a
hired car and threw the body on Pune-Satara Highway. Interestingly, not
a single statement is recorded by the investigating officer to show the
applicant was seen in the company of co-accused and further that both
of them were carrying the dead body of the deceased along with them.

¶24

7Although, it is further alleged that the co-accused had hired a car
but then the driver of the said vehicle is not examined in order to
substantiate that the driver had also seen both i.e. applicant and co-
accused Yogesh along with a dead body of the deceased and that they
carried the same in his vehicle. All that the investigating officer has
done is examination of Mahesh Appasaheb Dhamnekar, who at the
relevant time was working with ASS Justride Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd.
and his duty was to supply the car on rental basis. According to him, on
07/11/2019 co-accused Yogesh Kadam had booked a vehicle through
online and at about 16-45 p.m. took the possession of the vehicle at
pickup point and on 08/11/2019 he returned the vehicle at about 7-00
a.m. Except this there is nothing. So this circumstances also does not in
any manner further the case of prosecution.

¶25

Rekha Patil 4/6

¶26

70-BA-1027-2021.odt8

¶27

8 Coming to the Postmortem Report. It shows that the cause of death was due to head injury and viscera was preserved, however, no viscera report is forthcoming to show finding of any poisonous substance in the body of deceased.

¶28

9The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the
disclosure statement allegedly given by the applicant under Section 27
of the Evidence Act. By the said disclosure statement a steel glass was
recovered at the instance of applicant. In my considered opinion, this
circumstance also does not help the prosecution.

¶29

10Thus, having regard to the material on record, in my considered
opinion, the applicant has made out a case for bail. The applicant is not
only a woman but is also having two minor children, who are dependent
on her. She has permanent resident at Pune. No criminal antecedents
are brought on record. In such circumstances, I am inclined to allow
the application. Hence, the following order.

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(i)Applicant- Smt. Sheetal Sanjay Bhosale shall be released on bail
in C.R. No. 1064 of 2019 registered with Wakad Police Station, District-

¶32

Pune, on her executing P .R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one

¶33

Rekha Patil 5/6

¶34

or more sureties in like amount.

¶35

(ii)The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and
shall attend the trial regularly.

¶36

(iii)The observations made herein-above are prima-facie in its nature
for the purpose of deciding the bail application only. The trial Court
shall not be influenced by the observations while deciding the case on
merits.

¶37

(iv)Parties to act on copy of this order duly authenticated by the
Sheristedar of this Court.

¶38

(v) The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶39

 (V. G. BISHT, J.)

¶40

REKHA PRAKASH PATIL

¶41

Digitally signed by REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Date: 2021.11.15 16:09:08 +0530

¶42

Rekha Patil 6/6

Smt. Sheetal Sanjay Bhosale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sheetal Sanjay Bhosale 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyajeet Sunil Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vikas @ Vicky Ankush Bhise Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilesh Vithoba Gadade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh Shankar More Vs the State of Maharashtra

Akshay Rohidas Khirid Vs the State of Maharashtra

Iliyas Ismail Sayyed Vs the State of Maharashtra