MANJU ANWARALI KHATUN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

(2.) IT is seen that the incident in question took place on 15-07-2004. The deceased was admitted in hospital and was later on discharged on 18th July, 2004 at 12.30 p.m.. It is noticed that the deceased subsequently was found in drunken condition and misbehaving on the road and it is thereafter, she has died. If this is the fact situation, it is too much to say that an offence under section 302 is made out. The cause of death has not been thoroughly investigated. The applicant will have to be tried in connection with the incident which actually happened on 15th July, 2004 but surely not for offence under section 302 unless the prosecution is able to establish something more and explain that the deceased was discharged inspite of her precarious health condition. Be that as it may, taking over all view of the matter, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. The fact that the co-accused are absconding, is not a ground for declining bail to the applicant herein. The learned APP, states that the applicant has her place of residence at Malvani but those are unauthorised structure and are likely to be removed and that she has no fixed place of abode. This argument can be taken care of by imposing strict conditions, requiring the applicant to attend the local police station once in a week. Hence, the following order :-