Sangita @ Savita W/O Laxman Solanke v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1329 OF 2016 (Sangita @ Savita w/o Laxman Solanke Vs. The State of Maharashtra) ---- Mr. V.M. Humbe, Advocate for the applicant Mr. A.S. Shinde, A.P.P. for the respondent-State ---- CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 13/04/2016 ORAL ORDER :

1.

Heard both sides.

2.

The present applicant, who is apprehending her arrest at the hands of Sirsala Police Station, Taluka Dharur, District Beed in Crime No. 4/2016, registered for the offences punishable under section 498A, 323, 504, 304B, 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is praying for her release on bail in the event of her arrest.

3.

The statement of the victim of the offence would show that the present applicant is the sister-inlaw of the victim. According to the victim, always there used to be illtreatment to her during her

cohabitation with her husband Ram Solanke and other relatives including the present applicant, on the count of demand of money. Ultimately, on 31st January, 2016, as she was beaten with sticks and kicks and fists by the inlaws, as mentioned in the FIR, she poured kerosene on her person and set herself on fire.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the name of the applicant does not find place in the body of the FIR.

5.

In the circumstances, since the extracts sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class did not name the present applicant, earlier interim protection was granted to her. Lateron, however, the learned A.P.P. submitted that merely a clerical mistake has occurred which has been carried by the police constable while sending the extracts of the FIR and definitely the name of the present applicant figures in the FIR. 6.

Considering all the material on record, since there is strong prima facie evidence against the applicant, in my view, the custodial interrogation of the present applicant would be required. Hence, the

following order.

7.

The application is hereby dismissed. The interim protection granted by this Court to the present applicant vide order dated 2nd March, 2016 stands vacated.

[M.T. JOSHI] JUDGE npj/criapln1329-2016