Muktabai W/O Dharmaraj Bhavar v. The State Of Maharashtra

1 Cr.Apln. 6174.2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6174 OF 2014 Muktabai w/o Dharamraj Bhavar .... APPLICANT V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... RESPONDENTS .............................

Mr. Y.B.Bolkar h/f Mr. A.B.Girase, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. U.S.Mote, A.P.P. for R.No.1- State.

..............................

CORAM : V.M.DESHPANDE, J.

DATE : 30th JUNE, 2015 .............................

PER COURT :

1.

This is an application filed by the first informant Muktabai for cancellation of regular bail granted in favour of respondent nos. 2 and 3 u/s 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.

Heard Mr. Y.B.Bolkar holding for Mr. A.B.Girase, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. U.S.Mote, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No. 1 - State and Mr. P.R.Nangare, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

3.

According to learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Sessions Judge - 2, Ahmednagar ought not

2 Cr.Apln. 6174.2014 to have granted bail in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as per the order dated 18/09/2014.

4.

F.I.R. is lodged by Muktabai. F.I.R. is dated 23/08/2014. Name of the deceased is Meerabai. She was daughter of the first informant. Her marriage was performed with respondent No. 2 Bharat s/o Baban Bharat about two years back of the incident. Dead body of Meerabai was found floating in the well. According to F.I.R., present respondents along with other co-accused used to demand Rs. 2,00,000/- [Rupees Two Lacs] for construction of the house and on that count she was being subjected to cruelty. It is reported in the F.I.R. itself that the present respondent No. 2, the husband, was working as S.T. Conductor and he used to remain out side of the house for 8-10 days in a month. The nature of accusations made in the F.I.R. are most general in nature. Learned trial Court considered the nature of accusations against the present applicant and has rightly exercised the discretion in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, warranting no interference at this stage.

5.

Hence, present Criminal Application is rejected. [V.M.DESHPANDE, J.] KNP/Cr.Apln. 6174.2014