LEELABAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is a under trial prisoner in connection with Crime No.81 of 2018 (Sessions Case No.19 of 2019) registered with Mehunbare Police Station, District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 354-A, 302, 201, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC, the applicant-accused has filed an application Exh.22 for temporary bail in terms of the guidelines issued by High Power Committee, dated 11.05.2020 and thereafter time-to-time. By order below Exh.22 (common order below Exh.21 and 22), dated 22.05.2020, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, rejected the application.

(2.) The learned counsel for the applicant submits the appplicant a woman of 58 years of age in jail since 05.07.2018. The learned counsel submits that the Trial Court has rejected the application Exh.22 seeking temporary bail for the reason that as per the exclusion clause in the minutes of the High Power Committee, if the accused facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, he is not entitled to file such an application seeking temporary bail. The learned counsel submits that in the instant case, the allegations as against the applicant are restricted to the extent that she had committed the murder of the deceased by constricting her neck. The applicant is the mother-in-law of the deceased and the brother-in-law had ill eye on the deceased. As per the prosecution story, co-accused Pravin, who happened to be a brother-in-law had committed rape on the deceased and in order to cover the same, the present applicant and the co- accused persons committed the murder of the deceased by constricting her neck. The learned counsel submits that though the complaint came to be lodged on 04.07.2018, on 15.09.2018 statement of the girl child of the deceased namely Lavanya @ Disu came to be recorded, wherein for the first time she has stated about the overt act on the part of the applicant during the course of said incident. The learned counsel submits that the said girl child, after the death of her mother, remained in the custody of the informant, who happened to be the father of the deceased. Till then, the statement of the said girl child was recorded belatedly. The said witness Lavanya @ Disu is only four years of age and the time gap suggests the possibility of tutoring. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is easily available for trial. There is no criminal history. There is no question of tampering with the prosecution evidence since the said witness Lavanya @ Disu is now with the informant at village Shindi, Taluka Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon.

(3.) The learned APP has strongly resisted the application on the ground that prima facie, there is a strong case against the applicant. On earlier two occassions, this Court has rejected the Bail Application of the applicant on merits. There is a direct evidence in this case in the form of the statement of the said girl child Lavanya @ Disu. The learned APP submits that it is for the Trial Court to appreciate the evidence on its own merits. The applicant is not entitled to be released on temporary bail.