Mamtadevi Anilkumar Ravat v. State Of Maharashtra
Shivgan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.4290 OF 2025 Mamtadevi Anilkumar Ravat ...Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
Mr. Saugata Hazra, with Riddhi Ravindra Gurav, for the Applicant.
Ms. Poonam P Bhosale, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Satish Aswar, API attached to Boisar Police Station, Palghar, present.
CORAM
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
DATED:
20TH NOVEMBER 2025 PC:- 1.
By this Application, the Applicant seeks her enlargement on bail in connection with FIR No. 47 of 2019 dated 16th February 2019 registered with the Boisar Police Station, Palghar for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2.
It is an allegation against the Applicant that she along with her paramour, who is arraigned as an Accused No.1 in the criminal case, have together murdered the deceased, who was her husband. The said offence took place in her house whereby Accused No.1 hit the deceased's head with a hammer and the role attributed to the Applicant is that she destroyed the evidence by wiping the blood on the floor in the house. She herself filed missing complaint with the Police. On investigation, Police found the dead-body of the Victim in the fields. The offence was traced to Accused No.1 and the Applicant was also implicated for her role in the commission of the said offence.
3.
The Applicant filed an application seeking bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar, however, by order dated 6th April 2023, the same came to be rejected. Hence, the Applicant is before this Court for the reliefs as prayed. 4.
Mr. Saugata Hazra, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant, at the very outset, brings to my notice order dated
30th September 2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, enlarging Accused No.1 on bail. He submits that on this very ground, the principle of parity be invoked and the Applicant be also enlarged on bail.
5.
Per contra, Ms. Poonam Bhosale, learned APP representing the State in the matter, resists the Bail Application by saying that at this stage, charges are framed and 2 witnesses have already been examined; the offence is serious and only on the ground of long incarceration, the Accused No.1 was released on bail. Considering the present status of trial, the Bail Application of the Applicant be rejected.
6.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
7.
Admittedly, Accused No.1, who is alleged to have hit the deceased on his head with a hammer, is enlarged on bail. The role attributed to the Applicant is lesser in degree than that
attributed to Accused No.1 inasmuch as, the role attributed to the Applicant is of destroying the evidence by wiping the blood on the floor of the house. Undoubtedly, both the Accused were present in the house and it prima facie appears that both of them conspired to commit the offence. 8.
Be that as it may, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has enlarged the main Accused on bail. In the interest of justice and maintaining the principle of parity, I am inclined to enlarge the Applicant also on bail. Hence, the following order is passed:
ORDER
i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/ with one or two local sureties in the like amount; ii) The Applicant shall attend the Trial Court concerned on each and every date unless exempted by the orders of the Trial Court concerned;
iii) If the Applicant has not deposited her passport, the Applicant shall deposit the same with the Police Station concerned, if any;
iv) The Applicant shall not leave India, without the permission of the Trial Court;
v) The Applicant shall not tamper or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;
vi) The Applicant shall inform her latest place of residence and mobile number immediately after being released and / or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station;
vii) The Applicant to co-operate with the conduct of the trial;
viii) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.
9.
The Application is allowed in the above terms and is accordingly disposed of.
10.
It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie and are confined to this Application and the learned Trial Judge to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made herein. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN Date:
2025.11.21 14:13:18 +0530 SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN