Sheela Umesh Shukla v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1743 OF 2024 Sheela Umesh Shukla ...
Applicant Vs.
State of Maharashtra and another ...
Respondents Mr. Akshay Deshmukh a/w. Mr. Sumit Chaudhari and Mr. Sanket Kadam i/b. Mr.Aniket Pawar for Applicant.
Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Vinayak Ganapati Patil, PSI, Pimpri Police Station, Pimpri-Chinchwad, Pune. CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : JULY 03, 2024 P.C. :
.
Heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Khan, learned APP for the respondent-State. 2.
The applicant apprehends arrest in connection with FIR No.0504 of 2024 dated 28.05.2024 registered at Pimpri Police Station, District - Pimpri-Chinchwad, for offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
3.
A perusal of the material on record, particularly statement of the informant leading to registration of the FIR shows that the applicant is alleged to have been in relationship with the victim. It appears that there was a break-up and in this backdrop, on the date of the incident, the applicant and the victim met each other. They went their own ways as the applicant went in her car, while the victim sat on his Activa scooter for going away from the place of the incident. At this stage, co-accused person reached there by his own car and dashed the scooter of the victim, thereby causing him injuries and it is alleged that he even tried to MINAL SANDIP PARAB by MINAL SANDIP PARAB Date: 2024.07.03 14:26:50 +0530 run over the victim, leading to registration of the offence under Section 1/3
307 of the IPC.
4.
The description of the incident itself shows that the applicant was not the person who was driving the car which hit the scooter of the victim from behind. It is also not alleged that the applicant drove the car in an attempt to run over the victim. The allegation appears to be that the applicant had called the co-accused person at the spot of the incident. This Court is informed that the co-accused person is already arrested. 5.
Considering the role attributed to the applicant, this Court is of the opinion that so long as she is ready to co-operate with the investigation, the present application can be allowed.
6.
In view of the above, the application is allowed in the following terms:- A.
In the event the applicant is arrested in connection with FIR No.0504 of 2024 dated 28.05.2024 registered at Pimpri Police Station, District - Pimpri-Chinchwad, she shall be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand only] with one or two sureties in the like amount;
B.
The applicant shall remain present before the investigating officer between 10:00 a.m. and 12 noon on 05.07.2024 and thereafter, as and when called by the investigating officer. She shall co-operate with the investigation;
C.
The applicant shall not influence the informant, witness or any person concerned with the case and she shall not tamper with the evidence.
7.
Needless to say, violation of any of the aforesaid conditions would make the applicant liable to face proceedings for cancellation of 2/3
anticipatory bail. It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the question of grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant in the present application and that the trial Court shall proceed further, without being influenced by the observations made in this order. 8.
The application is disposed of.
(MANISH PITALE, J.) Minal Parab 3/3