Bombay High CourtABA/492/2017allowed

Smt. Shobha Wd/O. Vijay Yennawar v. State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. Of Police Station Bhadrawati Dist. Chandrapur

2017-07-19Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 aba492.17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRI. APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 492 OF 2017 (SMT. SHOBHA VIJAY YENNAWAR....VS.. STATE OF MAH.THR.P.S.O., BHADRAWATI, DIST. CHANDRAPUR) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.O.Ahmed, Advocate for Applicant.

Shri A.D.Sonak, A.P.P. for Non-applicant.

CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : JULY 19, 2017.

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.633 of 2017, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant has sought pre-arrest bail. According to the Investigating Agency, the daughter-in-law of the applicant has committed suicide because of constant harassment meted out to her by the applicant and husband of the deceased. The Investigating Agency has submitted that there is ample material available with it, including four chits (suicide notes) written by the deceased which show that the deceased has committed suicide because of the constant harassment.

The application is opposed on the ground that the incident has occurred within seven years of marriage in the matrimonial house of the deceased.

The facts on record show that the deceased has left behind five year old girl whose care is now being taken by

2 aba492.17 the applicant. The applicant, woman aged about 65 years has stated that she is not involved in any other crime/ offence. The non-applicant has not been able to point out that custody of the applicant is required for investigation. By order passed on 12th July, 2017 this Court has granted protection to the applicant. The Investigating Agency has not complained that the applicant has misused the protection granted by this Court.

In the facts of the case, the order passed by this Court on 12th July, 2017 granting protection to the applicant is confirmed.

The application is allowed accordingly.

JUDGE RRaut..