Mayawati @ Mayavva Gensidha Kothe v. The State Of Maharashtra

Dond

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1750 OF 2017 Mayawati @ Mayavva Gensidha Kothe ... Applicant V/s.

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ----- Mr. V.V. Purwant for the Applicant.

Mr. A.A. Palkar, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J.

DATE : 3rd NOVEMBER 2017.

P.C.:

1] By a reasoned Order dated 5th October 2017, the applicant was granted interim relief with a direction to attend the Investigating Officer on stipulated dates and to join the process of investigation. 2] It is the prosecution case that, the first informant namely Smt. Amareshwari S. Hiremath alleged that, she was suffering from supernatural powers coupled with psychological disorders and therefore she approached one person namely "Kothemaharaj", son of the applicant. It was informed to the first informant by the said Kothemaharaj that he is expert in curing 1/3

adverse impacts of supernatural powers. He informed the first informant that some alleged religious rituals are required to be performed by the first informant and for that purpose the said Kothemaharaj from time to time extracted a total sum of Rs.11,25,000/- for the first informant. It is the further prosecution case that, when the first informant realized that the remedies suggested or adopted by the said Kothemaharaj are of no avail, she demanded back the said amount. At that time, the said Kothemaharaj assaulted the first informant with fist blows. It is the allegation against the applicant that on one or two occasions he also assaulted the first informant with fist blows.

3] Prima facie, it appears that apart from assaulting the first informant on one or two occasions by the applicant, there is no other serious allegations against her. It further appears that the applicant has accepted the amount at the behest of the said Kothemaharaj, however, there is no corroboration to the same. It is submitted that the applicant is a woman, aged about 55 years. After perusing the record, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the applicant for further investigation of the present crime is not necessary. 2/3

4] In view thereof, the interim relief granted by an Order dated 5th October 2017 is confirmed. However, the condition to attend the Investigating Officer is hereby waived.

5] Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (A.S.GADKARI, J.) 3/3