Partly allowed

Sangita Raju Rathod and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Nov 2023BA/1886/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed applicant No.1's bail application as withdrawn. The court granted bail to applicant No.2, a female above 60 years, disposing of her application after finding the prima facie evidence against her insufficient for conviction of serious offences.

What did the court decide?

Applicant No.1's application dismissed as withdrawn. Applicant No.2 released on bail with security of ₹50,000 subject to non-tampering and attendance conditions.

Sangita Raju Rathod and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

915 sr.no..odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 915 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1886 OF 2023

¶4

SANGITA RAJU RATHOD AND ANOTHER

¶5

VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶6

Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Karne Gautam Jaywant
APP for Respondents: Mr. S.B. Narwade.

¶7

CORAM : S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

¶8

 DATE : 4th NOVEMBER, 2023

¶9

 ORDER :-

¶10

1.Applicants seek regular bail in connection with Crime
No.174 of 2023 registered with Police Station, Partur, Taluka Partur,
Distict Jalna. for offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 318
r/w. 34 of IPC.

¶11

2.At the outset, the learned Advocate appearing for
applicant on instruction seeks permission to withdraw bail
application so far as Applicant No.1 Sangita Raju Rathod is
concerned. He, however, prays to consider the application for
applicant No.2.

¶12

3.In view of aforesaid submission, the application, to the
extent of applicant No.1 is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶13

4.The Investigation was set in motion on the basis of
information given by one Suraj Rajesh Mankar who states that, he is
a Contractor. While passing from house of Arjun Chavan, he found

¶14

{2}

¶15

915 sr.no..odt

¶16

large number of persons crowded. Therefore, he rushed to the
place and noticed that, a new born child (fetus) is laying in a
gutter. He found that, it was a female child. Immediately, he
informed the police. On arrival of police, investigation was initiated
on the basis of registration of Crime No.174 of 2023 for offence
punishable under Section 318 of Indian Penal Code. Investigation
progressed. During course of investigation both applicants were
arrested on suspicion and finally charge-sheet came to be filed
against them for offence punishable under Section 318 & 201 of
Indian Penal Code.

¶17

5.Learned Advocate appearing for applicant would submit
that, applicant No.2 is more than 60 years of age. Evidence on
record is bereftto make out any offence against her. In any case, at
the most, offence under Section 318 of of Indian Penal Code can be
made out against applicant which is punishable with imprisonment
for two years.

¶18

6. Learned APP strongly opposes prayer for grant of bail.

¶19

7.Having considered submissions advanced, apparently
FIR was lodged when informant had seen dead body of the newly
born child (foetus) in front of house of one Arjun Chavan. After
arrest of the applicant No.01 DNA sample was taken which
confirmed that, applicant No.01 is the natural mother of new born
child. However, evidence on record is bereftto make out any
offence against application No.2 under Section 302 or 201 of IPC.

¶20

{3} 915 sr.no..odt

¶21

Prosecution relies upon statement of co-accused to bring home guilt
of applicant. Prima facie, police statement of co-accused may not
be admissible against the applicant No.2. There is nothing in
charge sheet except so called confessional statement of co-accused
to bring home complicity of applicant accused. The evidentiary
value of such statement will have to be determined in trial. In that
view of the matter considering age of applicant and nature of
evidence which is made part of charge-sheet, a case is made out for
grant of bail.

¶22

ORDER

¶23

1) The Applicant No.2 – Yashoda Gorakh Chavan, be released on bail in connection with Crime No.174 of 2023 registered with Police Station, Partur, Taluka Partur, Dist. Jalna, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 318 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code on his furnishing P.B. & S.B. of Rs.50,000/(Rs. Fifty Thousand), on the following conditions: -

¶24

a) Applicant No.2 shall not tamper with prosecution evidence.

¶25

b) Applicant No.2 shall attend each and every effective date before trial court till conclusion of trial.

¶26

2) Bail Application is accordingly disposed off.

¶27

 [S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR]

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

grt/-

Sangita Raju Rathod and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangita Raju Rathod and Another 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

Tanaji Prabhakar Babhale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Digamabar Tharu Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Manisha W/O Kakasaheb Lande Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sayyed Nasir Husen Vs Sayyed Jabin Nasir and Anr.

Shabbir Khan Habib Khan Pathan Vs Vishwakalyan Urban Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd. Aurangabad through Manager Damodar Sampatrao Dabhade

Anil S/O. Haribhau Samudre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others