Regular bail appeal by an accused in a murder registered under IPC and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court found she committed the overt act of holding the deceased while co-accused stabbed him, noted her criminal history and risk of witness tampering, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
6-APEAL-841-2024.odt
2024:BHC-AUG:25889
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 841 OF 2024
Sunita W/o Ulferao Shinde
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra & Anr
Mr. V. D. Karande a/w Mr. M. J. S. Granthi, Advocate for the Appellant• Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, APP for the Respondent/State
• Mr. W. A. Shaikh, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 *******
CORAM:R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE:OCTOBER 21, 2024
PER COURT :
1.Appellant is seeking bail in connection with
C.R. No. 28/2024 registered with Kurunda Police
Station, Dist. Hingoli for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 120-B, 143, 147, 148, 149, 504,
506, 109, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections
3(2)(5) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2.First information report lodged by Vilas Patil
indicates that the Appellant along with co-accused used
to wreak up quarrels with the people with contention
that slum situated on the land owned by them. They used
to threaten people to vacate the premises in lieu of
Umesh PAGE 1 OF 5
6-APEAL-841-2024.odt
the same used to demand money. Number of offences are
registered against them.
3.On 24.01.2024 at about 08.00 am while
informant was present just outside his house, present
Appellant and co-accused came to the spot i.e., to the
house of the Rahul (deceased). They threatened him for
vacating the premises and also abused him. It is stated
that the Appellant had slapped him and given threats to
kill him. Thereafter, at around 11.00 am informant and
others went near the hotel of one Gani Bhai. At that
time, Rahul was found at the said spot. When Rahul
proceeded towards Bank, witnesses has found present
Appellant and co-accused around the said place. He also
noticed that Anil abused Rahul and instigated co-
accused to cause assault on him. There is specific
mention that the present Appellant and her son Krushna
caught-hold Rahul and accused Kanhaiya Shinde has
assaulted Rahul with dagger on his neck. In the said
incident, Rahul sustained serious injuries and was
declared dead before admission in the hospital.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant is lady aged about 45 years. It is his Umesh PAGE 2 OF 5
6-APEAL-841-2024.odt
submission that it is not the case of the prosecution
that Appellant has caused injury to the deceased with
any weapon. It is submitted that no knowledge can be
attributed to the Appellant of alleged assault caused
by co-accused on the deceased. Bail is also sought on
the ground of Appellant is lady.
5.Learned APP and learned Counsel for Informant
opposed the Appeal by drawing attention of the Court to
the fact that from the evidence collected during the
course of investigation it can be seen that the
Appellant herein was sharing common intention with the
co-accused to kill deceased. They drew attention of the
Court to the statements of eye witnesses who have in no
uncertain terms stated about Appellant facilitating co-
accused to cause assault on deceased. It is his
submission that the incident of assault was preceded by
the incident in which present Appellant had slapped
deceased and also threatened to kill him. They further
submit that merely because Appellant is lady, she may
not get bail if her involvement is found in the serious
crime like murder.
6.This is not the case wherein Appellant is not
PAGE 3 OF 5
Umesh
6-APEAL-841-2024.odt
directly involved in the assault. There is overt-act
committed by the Appellant of caught-hold of the hand
of the deceased. As rightly pointed out by learned APP
that common intention can be gathered from the said
act. This is not the case that some incident had
occurred at the spur of moment. Previous incident
occurred at around 08.00 am indicates that threats
given at the time of first incident are materialised
immediately within a period of three hours. Presence of
Appellant with co-accused and more particularly overt-
act of the Appellant does not entitle her for bail.
Record indicates about there are four offences
registered against Appellant.
7.Considering the criminal history behind
Appellant, this Court finds substance in the contention
of learned APP that the possibility of interference in
the evidence is not ruled out. He drew attention of the
Court to the fact that co-accused against whom lessor
role was assigned in crime are enlarged on bail,
however, they are threatening the witnesses. All these
facts clearly show that this is not the case for grant
of bail.
PAGE 4 OF 5
Umesh
6-APEAL-841-2024.odt
8.In view of above discussion, there is no merit
in the Appeal. In the result, Appeal stands dismissed.
(R.M. JOSHI, J.)
PAGE 5 OF 5
Umesh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant, who held the deceased during a fatal assault and has four prior offences, should be granted bail in C.R. No. 28/2024.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sunita W/o Ulferao Shinde
The State Of Maharashtra
Respondent No. 2
R.M. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court