Vajinath Kashinath Puranik v. The State Of Maharashtra

VPH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 32 OF 2018 Meena Vaijinath Puranik ...

Applicant Vs.

State of Maharashtra ...

Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 192 OF 2018 Vaijinath Kashinath Puranik ...

Applicant Vs.

State of Maharashtra ...

Respondent *** Mr. Ritesh Thobde, for the Applicant.

Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent - State. *** CORAM : P. N. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : APRIL 19, 2018 PC :- 1.

Since both these applications arise out of C. R. No. 527/2017 registered with Bharti Vidyapeeth Police Station, district Pune for the offences punishable under Section 304-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, they are heard together for convenience and decided by this common order.

1 / 3

2.

Learned APP seeks further time for want of instructions. Order dated 5th April, 2018 specifically reads that sufficient time is already granted on that day to prosecution after granting interim protection to Applicants on 18th January, 2018 and thus, prosecution was granted time as a last chance till 19th April, 2018, on which date matter could not reach. In that view of the matter, heard the learned counsel for the Applicants.

3.

This Court has granted interim protection to Applicants, who are inlaws of deceased Rajashri, married to their son sometime in May, 2017. Learned counsel for Applicants makes statement at bar that husband of deceased is already released on bail by the Sessions Court and co-accused sister-in-law of deceased, who is mentally challenged, is granted anticipatory bail, and charge-sheet is filed. In the background of submissions advanced as aforesaid, and on perusal of report, allegations made against Applicants appear to be against husband of deceased, who has occasionally abused and picked up quarrels with her on flimsy grounds. He used to be in habit of staying out of house throughout night and on inquiry by deceased, did not give satisfactory answers due to which deceased was suspecting him, and 2 / 3

upon which her husband extended threats to give divorce. Involvement of Applicants is with regard to some taunts given by them to brother of deceased who visited on 17.10.2017 to fetch deceased for Diwali festival, saying that why he had come to their house. In fact, according to the report, role attributed to husband appears to be more serious as against parents who are before this Court and that husband is already released on regular bail. In view of facts as aforesaid and since investigation is complete, no custodial interrogation of Applicants is necessary. Hence, interim orders dated 18th January, 2018 (passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 32/2018), and dated 1st February, 2018 (passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 192/2018) shall stand confirmed. Sd/- [P. N. DESHMUKH, J.] Vinayak Halemath 3 / 3