..1..

Order Below Exh.1 in Cri.Bail Appln.No.654/2022
CNRNo.MHNS010025112022
Anuska Santosh Avhad Vs. State.
Heard:
1.

Ld.Adv. Mr. B. B. Shinde for the applicant.
Ld. APP Ms. S. S. Sangle for the State.

This is an application for bail under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.81/2022 registered at Police
station Wavi, Dist. Nashik for the offence punishable under Sections
302, 307, 324 and 498­A r/w Sec. 34 of the IPC. It is the case of the
prosecution in brief that the accused No. 1 is the husband of the
complainant and is a police constable. He had been inflicting physical
and mental cruelty on the complainant since the past few months. On
the date of the incident, he went to the complainant’s maternal home
and picked a quarrel with her. He also held her by her hair and
assaulted her with a knife on her thighs. When she raised a hue and
cry, her parents came to the spot when the accused No. 1 assaulted
both of them with a knife. He thus inflicted injuries on all three of
them and fled. Subsequently, the complainant’s father succumbed to
the injuries. Applicant herein is accused No. 6 and is the sister­in­law
of the complainant.
2.

Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the
applicant has been wrongly arraigned in the said offence. She was
not present at the spot of the incident and has no role to play in the
murder of the complainant’s father. Her role is only limited to offence
..2..

under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code. She is married and
has been residing in her matrimonial home. Other co­accused who are
similarly placed have been granted bail by this Court. Applicant has
complied with the terms and conditions imposed by the Court while
granting interim relief. Her custodial interrogation is not necessary.
3.

Per contra, Ld. APP has opposed the bail application on
the ground that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary.
4.

Applicant is not the prime accused and as per the case of
the prosecution itself was not present at the spot of the incident. She
has complied with the terms and conditions imposed by the Court
while granting interim relief. Her custodial interrogation therefore
does not appear to be necessary. In view of the foregoing discussion, I
am inclined to allow the application in terms of the following order:
ORDER
1)
Application is allowed.

2)
Interim order dated 25/05/2022 passed below Exh. 4
is hereby confirmed on the same terms and
conditions.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
Digitally
signed by
MRIDULA
MRIDULA BHATIA
BHATIA
Date:
2022.05.31
16:18:27
+0530
Nashik
31/05/2022.

M. V. Bhatia
District Judge­2 and Addl.
Sessions Judge, Nashik.