..1..
MHNS010052232021
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 553 OF 2022
Sitaram Sakharam Pawar
Age 45 Yrs., R/o. Barpuda
Tal. Kaparada, Dist. Balsad
State: Gujrath,
At present r/o. Pithundi,
Tal. Peth, Dist. Nashik.

… Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra
Police Inspector,
Peth Police Station,
Peth.

… Opponent
ORDER ON EXH.1
1.

The applicant has filed this application for bail under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in crime No.43/2022 of Peth Police station for
the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.
2.

The case of the prosecution is that, the informant who is
the brother of the deceased has lodged the report on 29/03/2022
alleging that he resides at Barpuda Tal. Kaprada Dist. Balsad Gujrath
State. On the same day at about 10.00 a.m. he received phone call of
Namdeo Pawar who is uncle of accused Sitaram Pawar and he narrated
him that accused has committed murder of his sister Savita Pawar. So
he immediately had been to the house of her sister and their he came to
know that on 28/03/2022 at night the accused and her sister Savita
Pawar were under influence of liquor and some quarrel took place
between them. At that time the accused has assaulted Savita with
..2..
wooden roti maker on her head and eyes. Wherein she has died on the
spot. Hence, he lodged the report.
3.

The accused has filed application seeking bail on the
ground that investigation in the crime is completed and his custodial
presence is not required. After the arrest of the accused the I.O. has
directly sought his MCR and the same shows that his custodial presence
is not required. He is falsely involved in the offence. He is not habitual
offender. So it is contended that if he is released on bail, he will abide
the terms and conditions of the bail imposed on him if any. So it is
prayed that he be released on bail.
4.

The Ld. APP. has filed pursis vide Exh.3 and the
Investigation Officer has filed his say vide Exh.4 and has contested this
application stating that the offence is serious in nature. There is
sufficient prima facie material to connect the accused with the crime. It
is further contended that the accused is not local resident and so if he is
released on bail he is likely to abscond. Also the informant and other
witnesses are the relatives of accused and so if he is released on bail
there is likelihood that he might tamper with the witnesses. So it is
prayed that the application be rejected.
5.

Heard Ld. Adv. F.A. Shaikh for accused. He argued that this
is the first bail application of accused. The accused is falsely involved in
the offence and his custodial presence is not essential. There was no
motive for the accused to commit the offence. So it is argued that he be
released on bail. Per contra, the Ld. APP Smt. Patil argued that there is
sufficient material on record which shows the direct involvement of the
..3..
accused in the offence. So considering the gravity of the offence and the
punishment described for the same his application be rejected.
6.

Considered the arguments. Gone through the FIR. In the
FIR it is stated by the informant who is the brother of the victim that on
telephone the uncle of the accused has informed him about the murder
of his sister Savita. So when he had been to the house of his sister he
saw that dead body of his sister was lying and blood was oozing from
head, face etc. After inquiry the accused himself has narrated that on
28/03/2022 he and his wife were under the influence of liquor and
some quarrel took place between them. So accused has assaulted his
wife with the wooden roti maker on her head and eyes. The FIR shows
that the victim has died on the spot. So the allegations in the FIR shows
direct involvement of the accused in the offence.
7.

In the FIR there is direct evidence against the accused. So
prima facie at this stage, there is enough evidence which connects the
accused with the present crime. There is prima facie sufficient material
on record to show the involvement of the accused in this offence. So
considering the same and as the offence is serious in nature as
punishment prescribed for the same is death sentence or life
imprisonment, so it will not be justified to release the accused on bail.
Moreover, accused is not local resident and the informant and witnesses
are his relatives. So the apprehension of prosecution regarding his
absconding and tampering of the witnesses cannot be ruled out. The
investigation is at initial stage. So for the aforestated reason I proceed
to pass the following order.

..4..
ORDER
Application for bail is rejected.
RADHIKA
MADHUKAR
SHINDE
Date:­ 12/05/2022
Nashik.

Digitally signed
by RADHIKA
MADHUKAR
SHINDE
Date:
2022.05.13
16:54:40
+0530
(Smt. R.M. Shinde)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Nashik.