ANJUM AJMER SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel Mrs. Sunita Sonwane for the applicant in Criminal Application No.3396 of 2019. For the reasons stated in the application, Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "B". Criminal application accordingly disposed off.

(2.) The applicant is seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.689 of 2019 registered with Police Station Topkhana, District Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under Section 326-A of IPC. His application with similar prayer below Exh.3 in Sessions Case No.299 of 2019 came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence. Even the informant has lodged the complaint against the unknown assailants. The learned counsel submits that it is difficult to believe that the informant could not recognize the applicant who allegedly thrown acid on his face in the hotel itself. The learned counsel submits that it is equally difficult to believe that the applicant has changed her appearance in such a manner that the informant could not identify her. The learned counsel submits that only in the supplementary statements recorded two days after registration of the crime, the informant has expressed his suspicion that the person who has thrown acid on his body is none else than the applicant. The learned counsel submits that the informant has sustained only 22 per- cent of the acid burns. He has been discharged from the hospital. The learned counsel submits that there is no charge of attempt to commit murder against the applicant and she has been charged only under Section 326-A of the IPC. The learned counsel submits that the applicant is a unmarried girl. The learned counsel submits that even assuming the prosecution story as it is for the sake of discussion, the applicant might have carried out her plan in the hit of anger. Her antecedents are clear. It has come in the statement of certain witnesses that the informant was expressing his love with two girls at one and the same time and the present applicant was one of the said two girls. Even if assuming that if something has been done in the hit of anger, as a matter of punishment bail cannot be refused to the applicant. The applicant has a fixed place of residence. She is easily available for trial. There is no question of tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is in jail since 08.05.2019. The applicant may be released on bail.