MHCC020005292022
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GR. MUMBAI AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2022
Sangita Ravi Pardeshi,
Age: 32 Years, Occ: Beggar
]
]…Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Azad Maidan
Police Station, vide C.R. No.402 of
2021)
]
]
]
]…Respondent.
Advocate Ravi Kumar Mishra for the applicant /accused.
APP Iqbal Solkar for the State.
CORAM :
HIS HONOUR THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
Dr. Shri.U.J.More (C.R. No.58)
DATE
:
04th FEBRUARY, 2022
ORDER
1.
This is bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of
Cr.P.C. in C.R. No.402 of 2021 of Azad Maidan Police Station for
offence punishable under section 307 of Indian Penal Code.
2.
The case of the prosecution is that on 24.09.2021 informant
Woman Police Havildar Pusha Muralidar Chaure attached to Azad
Maidan Police Station was on day duty with mobile van5 duty. At
about 12.10 clock noon while patrolling from Bombay Hospital at
Vitthaldas Thakarsi Marg, when she reached Goal Masjid police chowky
one person ran towards informant for help. Informant reached near
Page 1 of 4
footpath in front of Lotus Building and found one person of middle age
person who sustained grievous injury and was in need of immediate
medical treatment.
Accordingly, stretcher was called and also Azad
Maidan mobile van was called on the spot and he was admitted at G.T.
Hospital. In the investigation, it was found that Vijay Haribhau Borse
(victim) resident of Colaba was assaulted by paver block by Sangeeta
Pardeshi (applicant).
Accordingly, aforesaid offences has been
registered at concerned police station.
3.
The case of the applicant is that she is falsely implicated in this
case. She is nowhere concerned with the Vijay Haribhau Borse. It is to
be noted that it is mentioned in the application itself in para 4 that
“the said Vijay Haribhau Borse do not have any right to sleep at the
sleeping place of applicant without her consent”.
4.
I have heard learned Advocate Ravi Kumar Mishra for the
applicant /accused, who vehemently submitted that this is second bail
application of applicant. This is first bail application after filing charge
sheet. Applicant is lady and tried to sleep on her sleeping place at
footpath. Accused is in jail for more than four months. Accused is
beggar lady without criminal background.
5.
I have heard learned APP Iqbal Solkar for the State who
vehemently argued that first Bail Application No.3022 of 2021 was
categorically rejected by this Court only. It is an attempt to kill victim
with paver block. Paver block is seized with blood stain. No permanent
resident of the applicant. Statement of witness is yet to be recorded.
Page 2 of 4
6.
Heard both sides.
Perused application and say filed by the
prosecution. Perused chargesheet. It is true that first bail application
has been rejected on merits.
This is second bail application after
chargesheet is filed.
7.
I have gone through the statement of witnesses in which
informant Pusha Muralidar Chaure immediately visited on the spot and
found that victim was in serious condition. She also found blood stain
on the spot of incident as well as paver block with blood stain and some
hair affixed to the paver block, it seems from the statement of this
witness that the crime has been recorded in CCTV footage as one
woman wearing salwar suit caught paver block with two hands, lifted
paver block and assaulted twice on head of Vijay Haribhau Borse
therefore, at this stage it would notbe justifiable to release the accused
as the statement reveals that intention and knowledge of applicant to
commit murder. The evidence of other witnesses also support the
prosecution case especially this witness by Osama Isaa Jagarala and also
Mr. Vikrant Valate and therefore, I am of the opinion that if accused
released on bail at this stage before recording the evidence of eye
witnesses certainly chance to tamper the prosecution evidence as well
as chance to flee over trial. Offence under section 307 of Indian Penal
Code is serious one. No local address of the applicant as well as any
documentary proof in this regard and therefore, there is a substance in
the argument advanced by the learned APP for the State. I do not find it
fit to release the accused on bail considering the facts and
circumstances of the case. Hence, the order:
ORDER
1.
Bail Application No.108 of 2022 is rejected being devoid of
merits.
Page 3 of 4
2.
Bail Application No.108 of 2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Dr. U.J.More)
Additional Sessions Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay
Date : 04/02/2022
Order Dictated on : 04/02/2022
Transcribed on
: 04/02/2022
Signed on
: 04/02/2022
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
09.02.2022
Upload Time
11.11 a.m.
Name of Stenographer
ARUN ANNAMALAI MUDALIYAR
Name of the Judge (With Court HIS HONOUR THE
Room No.)
SESSIONS JUDGE
ADDL.
Dr. SHRI. U. J. MORE (CR 58)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
of 04.02.2022
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by 04.02.2022
P.O. on
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded 09.02.2022
on
Page 4 of 4