1 aba667.18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 667/2018
Sau. Nalubai Dhanraj Sontakke
..VS..
State of Maharashtra, Thru PSO, PS Pinjar, Tq. Barshitakali, Dist. Akola
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s orders
appearances, Court’s orders of directions
and Registrar’s orders
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Shri U.J. Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant
Shri N.B. Jawade, APP for the non-applicant/State
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : 11/10/2018
Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime
No. 144/2018 registered by the non-applicant against the
applicant, her husband and two sons for the offences
punishable under Section 307, Section 498A and Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail.
The FIR is registered on the complaint lodged by
the daughter-in-law of the applicant. The facts on record
show that marriage between Bhavana (complainant) and
Manohar (son of the applicant) was solemnized in 2012 and
all the accused and the complainant had been residing in the
same house. According to the complainant, on some trivial
issue, the brother-in-law of the complainant wanted to set her
ablaze by pouring kerosene however the father-in-law of the
complainant stopped him telling him that if she is set ablaze,
the flames would be seen by the persons residing in the
locality. Thereafter, the brother-in-law of the complainant and
the father-in-law of the complainant forcibly administered
poison to the complainant and at that time, the applicant was
present but she had not prevented her husband and son from
::: Uploaded on – 11/10/2018 12/10/2018 02:01:38 :::
2 aba667.18
committing the offence.
Considering the facts of the case, the nature of
accusations against the applicant and that the applicant is a
woman (aged about 61 years) and as the non-applicant has
not been able to show that custody of the applicant is
necessary for further investigation, the following order is
passed:-
(i) The order passed by this Court on
28/09/2018 granting pre-arrest bail to the
applicant is confirmed.
The application is allowed accordingly.
JUDGE
Ansari
::: Uploaded on – 11/10/2018 12/10/2018 02:01:38 :::
