Smt. Vijaymala Wd/O Deodas Ramteke v. State Of Maharashtra, Through Panchpaoli Police Station, Nagpur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY:
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application [ABA] No.624 of 2015 [Vijaymala widow of Devdas Ramteke Vs. State of Mah.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Mr. Mohameed Ahfaz Qureshi, Adv., for the Applicant. Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for respondent.
Mr. P.S. Jaiswal, Adv., for intervener.
----
CORAM
:
A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.
DATE :
20th January, 2016 During the course of hearing of this application for grant of anticipatory bail, learned counsel for the applicant fairly stated that the applicant is also working as a Govt. Servant in Irrigation Department of the State. The contention of the applicant is that she had married with the deceased Devdas, who was also working in Irrigation Department. Nomination in the applicant's name was made by the deceased and, therefore, she was entitled to make a claim for terminal benefits due to him being the legally wedded wife.
Per contra, Mr. Jaiswal, learned Adv., for the
widow of the deceased [claiming to be the first wife of the deceased] submitted that the alleged marriage of the applicant cannot be said to be valid in law and, therefore, his client and her children alone were entitled to succeed to the movable property, namely terminal benefits as well as Family Pension.
Since there are rival claims on the issue of marriage and entitlement and this Court is not competent to decide those issues, obviously they are kept open without prejudice to the rights of any of the parties to this application.
However, during the course of hearing on the last dates, it was suggested to the applicant through her counsel that she being the Govt. Servant, was also entitled to pension and the terminal benefits upon her retirement and, therefore, it was not wise to deprive the first wife and her children from getting those benefits, as it would enure to nobody's benefit, and, on the contrary, the first wife, who is not earning anything, would face a state of penury, so also her children. The suggestion having been put to the client through her counsel, an affidavit has been filed by the applicant to the said effect bearing Stamp No. 209/16 dated 18th January, 2016. This Court appreciates the gesture to forgo all the terminal benefits in favour of the client of Mr. Jaiswal. The statements made in paras 1 and 2 of the said affidavit are, therefore, accepted.
The learned counsel for the applicant contended that some immovable property was purchased by the deceased. But then, the applicant had contributed a considerable amount for the purchase thereof. But then the applicant is not prohibited from pursuing her claim to the immovable property, of course, without prejudice to the rights of Mr. Jaiswal's client.
With these observations, in the light of the allegations in the FIR, I think, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in Crime No. 357/15 registered with Panchpaoli Police Station, Nagpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. In that view of the matter, I make the following order:-
O R D E R
[a] Criminal Application [ABA] No. 624 of 2015 is allowed.
[b] The statements made in the Affidavit Stamp No. 209/16 dated 18th January, 2016 sworn by the applicant - Smt.
Vijaymala widow of Deodas Ramteke are accepted.
[c] In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with Crime No. 357/15 for offences punishable under Sections 420,
467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code registered with respondent - Police Station Officer, Police Station, Panchpaoli, Nagpur, against the applicant, the respondent - Police Station Officer, Police Station, Panchpaoli, Nagpur, is directed to release the applicant on bail, upon the Applicant furnishing a Personal Bond in a sum of Rs. 20,000/- [rupees twenty thousand only] with one surety in the like amount.
Judge |hedau|