CNR MHNS010044242020
CR. No. I­554/2020,
registered
with
Nashikroad
Police
Station,
Nashik
District
:
Nashik
under section 302,323
read with 34 of the
IPC.

Order below Exh.1 in Cri. Bail Application No.1607/2020.
{ Anita Balasaheb Shingar Vs. State }
The bail application is filed under section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) by the
applicant­accused Anita Balasaheb Shingar, arrested on 28.10.2020
in connection with C.R. No. I­554/2020, dated 28.10.2020, filed
with Nashikroad Police Station, Nashik, District : Nashik, for the
offence punishable under section 302,323 read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’). He is in magisterial custody
remand since 31.11.2020.
2.

The application has been preferred on the grounds that
the applicant­accused is falsely implicated in this crime. There is no
role of applicant­accused in this crime. There was no intention or
motive of the accused persons to kill the deceased. Cross complaint
is filed. The husband and son of the applicant­accused are yet taking
treatment in hospital. There is no recovery of discovery pending at
the instance of the applicant­accused. She has no criminal
antecedents. She is permanent resident on the given address. Hence,
bail may be granted to the applicant­accused.
3.

The learned APP Mr. Kadve has filed say at Exh. 05.

He has opposed the bail application on the grounds that the offence
..2..

is very serious. The witnesses would be pressurized or allured, if the
applicant­accused is released on bail. Investigation is incomplete.
There is possibility that she would flee from justice. Other accused
are yet to be arrested. Hence, bail may not be granted to the
applicant­accused.
4.

Heard both the sides. Perused the case papers. Learned
Adv. Mr. A. K. Kale for the applicant has submitted along with the
line of her contentions in the application. He has additionally
submitted that the applicant­accused is suffering from ailments. She
is medically unfit. She has no role whatsoever in this crime. Learned
APP Mr. Kadave has opposed this submissions and has submitted
alongwith the line of say.
5.

Amidst the above rival contentions it is to be decided as
to whether the applicant­accused has made out a genuine case for
his enlargement on bail. Before adverting to the circumstances of
investigation and case, it would be appropriate to mention in short
the facts leading to impleadment of the applicant­accused.
6.

Briefly stated as per FIR dated 28.10.2020, informant
Rahul Pandit Jamdade noticed on 27.10.2020 at about 10.00p.m.
that his maternal uncle Prakash Dhale was present near traction
gate, Eklahare Road. Accused No.1 Balasaheb Shingar was also
present there. There were alterations between them. Informant and
his friend Ravi intervened in the quarrel, at that time accused Sagar
Shingar and Balu Shingar came there with base­ball bats. They
started beating Prakash Dhale, accused Sagar inflicted a blow of
base­ball bat on the head of Prakash. Prakash fall down due to
Cri. Bail Application No.1607/2020.
..3..

assault. Thereafter also the accused persons continued beating him.
Applicant­accused came there and told the other accused, let him
die and thereafter all the accused persons went from the spot. In the
vehicle of Sachin Aher, Prakash Dhale was shifted to Bytco Hospital,
where he was declared dead. FIR was registered and investigation
started.
7.

Another FIR was lodged by the informant Dinesh
Shingar that they have received beatings at the hands of one Yogesh
Aher, Shiva Jadhav and 5 to 6 persons as they have given beatings
to Prakash Dhale. In this assault informant Dinesh sustained injuries
on his both legs and his father Balasaheb received injuries on his
hands and legs. FIR was registered at Nashikroad Police Station
against accused persons for the offences under section 326, 325,
323,143,147,148 of the IPC along with section 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act.
8.

On going through the Post­mortem notes the opinion as
to cause/ probable cause of death is “Cranio­cerebral damage due to
blunt trauma to head”. Two base­ball bats have been seized during
investigation.
9.

Considering the above discussion it is seen that the
name of applicant­accused is mentioned in the FIR. Her role and
presence is also specifically described. The offence is registered in
furtherance of common intention of all the accused persons.
Therefore, at this juncture in the bail proceedings it would be very
pre­mature even to draw a prima facie conclusion that she was not
involved in this offence as she has not assaulted the deceased.

..4..

During trial conclusive findings pertaining to her alleged role in the
offence would be determined. Prima facie, the allegations against
her are well founded.
10.

The investigation is yet incomplete. Two accused are yet
to be arrested. Charge­sheet is not yet filed. Considering the
seriousness and gravity of offence, opportunity of investigation and
collection of evidence is necessary to be given to the investigating
agency. The proximity of the applicant­accused with the scene of
offence and the locality is not disputed. Therefore, her probable
contact with the witnesses in the locality may hamper the
investigation process. The medical record of the applicant­accused is
filed in photo copies. However, there is nothing on record to show
that the applicant­accused is physically unfit for the judicial custody.
So also in this regard certain directions can be given to the Jail
Authorities.
11.

The punishment for the offence punishable under
section 302 of the IPC is death or imprisonment for life and shall
also be liable to fine. Therefore, the offence is serious.
12.

Thus, to sum up, the entire discussion prima­facie there
are circumstances on record pointing towards the role and
participation of the applicant­accused. The nature of offence is very
serious. Considering the gravity of accusation thorough and fair
investigation is necessary to be done. Considering the need of detail
probe release of the applicant­accused on bail at this stage would
hamper the process of investigation. The proximity of the applicant­
accused with the scene of offence is not disputed. The possibility of
Cri. Bail Application No.1607/2020.
..5..

tampering the evidence and pressurizing the witnesses cannot be
altogether ruled out. The submissions pertaining to minimal role
applicant­accused in this crime are pre­mature to be considered at
this stage. Hence, there are no circumstances made out the
applicant­accused to enlarge her on bail, at this stage. Resultantly, I
proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
The application filed by Anita Balasaheb Shingar is
hereby rejected.
(Dictated and Pronounced in open court.)
Samarendra
Prakashrao
Naik
Nimbalkar
27.11.2020.

Digitally signed by
Samarendra
Prakashrao Naik
Nimbalkar
Date: 2020.11.30
11:10:25 +0530
(S.P.Naik­Nimbalkar )
Additional Sessions Judge,
Nashik.