Shubhangi Ganesh @ Tukaram Kadbhane v. The State Of Maharashtra

* 1/2 * 3-APPA-720-2017.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.720 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.441 OF 2017 Shubhangi Ganesh @ Tukaram Kadbhane ......Applicant V/s.

State of Maharashtra .......Respondent Mr. Harshad E. Palwe , Advocate for Applicant. Mrs. G.P.Mulekar, APP for Respondent-State.

CORAM :

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE :

DATE :

14th th June, 2017.

June, 2017.

P.C. :

P.C. :

Heard both sides.

Heard both sides.

The Applicant/Original Accused No.2 has been The Applicant/Original Accused No.2 has been convicted under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 convicted under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. She has been convicted with her mother-inof the IPC. She has been convicted with her mother-inlaw/Original Accused No.1-Yamunabai for committing the law/Original Accused No.1-Yamunabai for committing the murder of father-in-law Popat, who was husband of the murder of father-in-law Popat, who was husband of the Original Accused No.1.

Original Accused No.1.

It is the prosecution case that the ApplicantIt is the prosecution case that the ApplicantShubhangi held Popat and her mother-in-law/Original Shubhangi held Popat and her mother-in-law/Original Shivgan

* 2/2 * 3-APPA-720-2017.doc Accused No.1 had thrown the grinding stone on the head of Accused No.1 had thrown the grinding stone on the head of Popat which led to his death. There is no eye witness in the Popat which led to his death. There is no eye witness in the present case. There is no recovery at the instance of the present case. There is no recovery at the instance of the Applicant which connects her with crime. Reliance is placed Applicant which connects her with crime. Reliance is placed on one confession made by the co-accused. However, this on one confession made by the co-accused. However, this confession was made before the police. Hence, we cannot confession was made before the police. Hence, we cannot take it into consideration. No other material was pointed take it into consideration. No other material was pointed out by the learned APP which connects the Applicant to the out by the learned APP which connects the Applicant to the crime.

crime.

Looking to the evidence on record and the fact that Looking to the evidence on record and the fact that the Applicant who is young lady was on bail during the trial, we the Applicant who is young lady was on bail during the trial, we are inclined to grant bail to the Applicant. Hence, the following are inclined to grant bail to the Applicant. Hence, the following order:

order:

(I) (I) The Applicant be released on bail in sum of The Applicant be released on bail in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties to make Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties to make up the said amount and P.R.Bond in the like up the said amount and P.R.Bond in the like amount.

amount.

(II) During the period that the Applicant was on During the period that the Applicant was on bail, she shall report to Sinnar Police Station, bail, she shall report to Sinnar Police Station, Nashik once in three months.

Nashik once in three months.

5 Application is allowed in the above terms. 5 Application is allowed in the above terms. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) Shivgan