B.A.1041/2024
..1..

MHCC020064912024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1041 OF 2024
IN
C.R.NO.193 OF 2024
Tina Umesh Bagde
Widow of Umesh Bagde
Age : 40 years,Occ : Labour
Plot No.80, New Ganpat Chawl,
Opp Sitla Mata Mandit, Kherwadi
Bandra (East), Mumbai
Presently Lodged at Byculla
Central Prison
…Applicant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra
(Through Nirmal Nagar Police
Station)
CORAM:
…Respondent
HH THE ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
SHRI. V. M. SUNDALE
(Court Room No.27)
DATE : 02nd May 2024
Shri Ravishankar Dwivedi, learned advocate for applicant.
Ms. Ratnavali Patil, learned APP for State/Respondent
B.A.1041/2024
..2..

ORDER
01.

The applicant Smt. Teena Umesh Bagade has filed this
application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for
granting bail in connection with Crime No.193/2024 registered in
Nirmal Nagar Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under
Sections 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegations that the
applicant committed murder of her daughter and caused disappearance
of evidence.
02.

The investigating officer through learned A.P.P. filed reply
(Exh.02) and opposed the application. It is contended that the deceased
daughter of applicant and one Rahul were in love and were soon to get
married. The applicant was against the love affair and marriage
between her daughter and Rahul. On this ground the applicant used to
abuse and beat her daughter. In the course of investigation, it is
transpired that on the above ground the applicant strangled her
daughter to death and caused disappearance of evidence. The offence is
serious and punishable with death penalty. According to the
investigating officer in such circumstances if the applicant released on
bail there is possibility of pressurizing the prosecution witnesses and
fleeing away from the justice. Hence, the investigating officer prayed to
reject the application.
03.

It appears that the name and role of the applicant
specifically mentioned in the first information report. It is alleged that
the deceased daughter of applicant and one Rahul were in love and
were soon to get married. The applicant was against the love affair and
marriage between her daughter and Rahul.

On this ground the
applicant always used to abuse and beat her daughter. It is alleged on
B.A.1041/2024
..3..

11.03.024 the applicant admitted her daughter in V.N.Desai Hospital by
saying that her daughter due dizziness fell on the ground and sustained
head injury. The medical officer after examining body of applicant’s
daughter declared her as dead. However, the abrasions were visible on
the persons of daughter of the applicant. The police made inquiry with
the applicant and her family members. In the course of inquiry, the
police transpired that the applicant was against the love affair between
her daughter and Rahul and on that ground, she committed murder of
her daughter. It is further transpired that the applicant caused
disappearance of evidence and also misguided the medical officers and
police. The investigating officer opposed the application mainly on the
ground that the offence is serious and there is strong possibility of
pressurizing the prosecution witnesses.
04.

Shri. Ravishankar S. Dwivedi, learned advocate for the
applicant submits that the applicant is widow and maintaining her
family by doing labour work. The deceased daughter of applicant also
started doing the job to support her mother financially. The daughter of
applicant after joining the job developed friendship with Rahul and also
entered into relationship with him. The applicant asked her daughter to
wait for sometime and build her career. The applicant never objected to
the love affair and marriage between her daughter and Rahul. The
police falsely implicated the applicant in the present crime. He further
submits that the applicant is only earning member in her family and no
one is available to take care of her other children. Hence, the learned
advocate for the applicant prayed to release the applicant on bail. In
support of above contention, he placed on record certain medical casepapers of the deceased and relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay
High Court in case of Shamsunisa @ Shama Shaikh Vs State of
B.A.1041/2024
..4..

Maharashtra, Bail Application No.3125/2022 decided on 04.03.2024.
05.

On the other hand, Ms. Ratnavali Patil, learned APP for the
prosecution strongly opposed the application mainly on the ground that
the offence is serious and in the course of investigation it is transpired
the applicant was against the love affair between her daughter and
Rahul and on that ground, she committed murder of her daughter. She
further submits that, in such circumstances if the applicant released on
bail there is possibility of pressuring the prosecution witnesses and
fleeing away from justice. Hence, the learned APP prayed to reject the
application.
06.

I have carefully gone through record with reference to
submission of both the sides. The record clearly shows that the name
and role of the applicant is specifically mentioned in the first
information report. It further appears that prior to this incident the
applicant and her deceased daughter had quarreled. In the said quarrel,
the applicant’s daughter bitten the right index finger of the applicant. It
is alleged that the applicant not only committed murder of her daughter
but also caused disappearance of evidence and misguided to the
medical officer. In the course of investigation, the involvement of the
accused in the crime has been found. The opinion in respect of cause of
death reserved with evidence of multiple injuries and throttling. The
report of chemical analyzer is awaited. In such circumstances at this
stage, it cannot be said that the applicant was falsely implicated in the
present crime. The offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
is serious and punishable with capital punishment. The minor son and
daughter of the applicant are main eye witnesses to the alleged
incident. The apprehension placed on record by the prosecution in
B.A.1041/2024
..5..

respect of pressurizing the prosecution witnesses is well founded. In
such background, the medical case-papers of applicant’s deceased
daughter cannot be considered at this stage. In the same manner, the
applicant is not entitled to rely on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High
Court in case of Shamsunisa @ Shama Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra,
Bail Application No.3125/2022 decided on 04.03.2024, because in the
above case, the investigation was completed and applicant was
pregnant and in custody for more than two years. In this case, the
investigation is in progress. In the facts and circumstances, the applicant
is not entitled to release on bail. In the result the application filed by the
applicant to release on bail is liable to be rejected. Hence, the following
order is passed.
ORDER
1.

Criminal Bail Application No.1041 of 2024 is rejected.

2.

Thus, Criminal
disposed of.

Bail Application No.1041 of 2024 stands
Digitally signed
by VIRBHADRA
VIRBHADRA MAHADAPPA
MAHADAPPA SUNDALE
Date:
SUNDALE
2024.05.03
16:59:15 +0530
02/05/2024
(V. M. Sundale)
Addl. Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Mumbai
B.A.1041/2024
..6..

CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
03/05/2024
5.00 p.m.

Name of Stenographer
Mrs. M.S. Putta
Name of the Judge (With C.R. No.)
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
HHJ Shri V.M.Sundale (C.R.No. 27)
of
02/05/2024
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by P.O.
on
02/05/2024
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded on
03/05/2024