CNR MHNS010047932022 Order below Exh.1

in Cri. Bail Application No.1112/2022.

( Vanita Sitaram Gaikar Vs State)

This application is moved by the applicants­accused Vanita Sitaram Gaikar under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of bail in connection with CR No.138/2022 registered with MIDC
Sinnar Police Station, Tal. Sinnar, Dist. Nashik for the offence under section 302, 201, 181 of the Indian Penal Code on 20.5.2022. This is first bail application after filing of charge­sheet.

2.It is stated in the application that applicant­accused was
arrested on 21.5.2022 and remanded to the police custody upto 24.5.2022 and since then applicant­accused is in magistrate custody.

The first information report was registered by ASI Gorakshnath Balak.

Initially the AD was registered by applicant­accused herself vide No.26/2022 informing to the MIDC police station that on 19.5.2022 at about 7.30 p.m. that her husband Sitaram Gaikar committed suicide by hanging himself in a residential premises. However, during the course of inquiry/investigation of the said AD police suspected that Vanita has given false information to the police. Meanwhile inquest panchanama and post mortem was conducted and the medical officer has opined that death is due to asphyxia due to ligature strangulation. It is disclosed during the interrogation that on 19.5.2022 at about 6.30
p.m. her husband Sitaram who was present in the house received phone call of the sister­in­law of Vanita and therefore, deceased Sitaram demanded Rs.6,000/­ so as to pay installment of Bhishi.

However, Vanita refused to give said amount to her husband and therefore, there was verbal altercation between husband and wife and Vanita strangulated her husband with a nylon rope and thereby
..2..

committed murder of her husband.

3.

It is stated in the application that applicant­accused is working as a cook in the high school and was also doing additional work of daily wages and therefore, the management of the high school provided her with a room. Applicant­accused is having two children who are taking education. Their educational future will be hampered, if the applicant­accused is detained behind the bar. These and other ground set out in the application, prayed for bail.

4.

I.O. PSI Shri. Tribhuvan present and submitted his report
and opposed the bail application. The learned APP also filed his say and submitted to reject the application.

5.

Perused the record. Heard both the parties.

6.

The learned counsel for applicant­accused Adv. N.P.

Chavan submitted during the course of his arguments that applicantaccused is belonging to poor family. She herself is working to feed her children. The investigation of this crime is over and the charge­sheet is in the court of learned JMFC, Igatpuri bearing RCC No.307/2022 on 4.8.2022. There is circumstantial evidence and no direct evidence against the applicant­accused. He further submitted that in the FIR it is mentioned that, the deceased was strangulated with the help of scarf ¼QsVk½ and medical evidence shows that nylon rope is used in commission of crime, therefore, there is discrepancy in the prosecution evidence. Applicant­accused is a local resident, her antecedents are clean, she will not jump the bail, she will abide by the condition laid down by this Court and prayed to allow the application.

7.

On the other hand, learned APP Shri. Suryvanshi submitted
Cri. Bail Application No.1112/2022.

..3..

that applicant­accused who committed murder of her husband had given false information to the police and pretended that her husband has committed suicide by hanging himself to the ceiling and thus, totally misguided the entire investigating machinery. It is the investigating officer who has visited the spot of incident and also sought medical opinion and therefore, the present crime unearthed with due care and precaution taken by the police while conducting investigation of present case. Therefore, he submitted that considering the fact that the witnesses are relatives and applicant­accused may influence and the investigation is over and charge­sheet is filed in the learned JMFC, Igatpuri. Hence, bail application may be rejected.

8.

On perusal of the record, it appears that, initially AD was
registered on the information submitted by the applicant­accused Vanita herself and the inquiry/investigation of the said AD was conducted by ASI Gorakshnath Balak, who carried out spot panchanama and inquest panchanama and send body for post mortem to the Civil Hospital, Nashik and in the initial inquiry/ investigation of the said AD, it is disclosed that applicant­accused herself strangulated the deceased by nylon rope and create a scene that her husband had committed suicide. Necessary evidence is placed on record.

9.

The learned counsel for applicant­accused submitted that,
initially the police have seized scarf ¼QsVk½ and investigation on the line that the said scraf ¼QsVk½ was used for commission of the offence.

However, from the post mortem report, it is disclosed that the ligature mark present around the neck in the formed of pressure abrasion in complete encircle the neck with deficient area of 5 cm present over the neck. It is also mentioned that, the ligature mark is 41 cm in length
..4..

and 0.4 cm in breadth. The ligature mark is 6 cm below the level of chin and 8 cm above the level of sternal lotch, ligature mark is 5 cm below the right mostoid and 6 cm below the left mostoid. Therefore, opinion was sought from the Medical Officer exactly by which muddemal article those injury and strangulation mark visible in the PM
Report. The Medical Officer has given opinion that injuries No.1
mentioned in Col. No.17 of the PM are consistent with being caused by weapon No.1 examined i.e. one nylon rope dimensions = length 26 ft and circumference 0.8 cm. It is also opined that the said injuries are not consistent with the weapon No.2 examined i.e. pink cloth rope dimensions 8 feet and circumference 1.8 cm.

10.

Thus, it is initially tried to misguide the police machinery by the accused herself by creating the scene of suicide and also produce a false evidence to distract the investigation. However, with the clever and attentive efforts made by the investigating officer the offence of homicide was unearthed as disclosed from the entire chargesheet. The nylon rope was subsequently seized from the very room at the hands of the accused herself.

11.

There is prior history of quarrel in between husband and
wife as the accused herself lodged NC against her deceased husband with Sinnar Police Station on 13.2.2022 for the offence punishable under section 504,506 of IPC alleging that deceased was suspecting her character and had abused and threatened her under influence of liquor.

12.

It is the case of the prosecution that on the day of incident the quarrel took place between husband and wife as deceased was insisting upon an amount of Rs.6,000/­ by canceling the postal RD. The
Cri. Bail Application No.1112/2022.

..5..

learned counsel for applicant­accused raised objection that there is no evidence to that effect, however, the learned APP pointed out that the investigating Officer has collected the information recording the postal deposits and placed on record at page 46 of the charge­sheet which shows that an amount of Rs.40,000/­ and 1,507/­ are lying in the name of applicant­accused with Department of Post Nashik.

13.

Though the present case is based upon circumstantial evidence, however, considering the behaviour of the applicant­accused that she had not only allegedly strangulated her husband, but also tried to suppress the circumstances against her and attempted to plant false evidence on the scene of occurrence. Thus, she tried to distract the entire line of investigation with the help of her cunning brain. As stated above, though there is no direct evidence or witness to the incident, however, the entire circumstances and the medical papers placed on record, prima facie for the purpose of deciding the present bail application as disclosed from the charge­sheet points out apperant involvement of the applicant­accused in the crime. However, the same will be tested in the trial while deciding the case on merit. However, at this stage while deciding the bail application of the applicantaccused who is facing charges under section 302, 201 of the IPC, it was the duty of the applicant­accused to satisfy the court at least for the purpose of deciding the present bail application the material placed on record by the prosecution is insufficient to point out her involvement in the crime. In a similar situation, where the wife has brought the dead body of the husband to the Civil Hospital and subsequently the father of her husband raised suspicion and the investigation was conducted, medical opinion sought and the involvement of the wife of deceased was came in the investigation and therefore, she was arrested in the
..6..

crime punishable under section 302 of IPC and while rejecting the bail application, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held in Nitika Gupta Vs State, 2018(1) RCR (Cri) 431 that,
“2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 17.04.2016, a DD
No. 4­A at P.S Janak Puri was registered to the effect that an information was received from Mata Chanan Devi Hospital that patient Manish Gupta/deceased is brought dead by his wife Nitika Gupta/petitioner. Thereafter, statement of the complainant Satya Dev Gupta/father of the deceased was recorded wherein he stated that he is suspicious that his son Manish Gupta had been murdered by the petitioner and requested post­mortem of his son to be done by a Medical Board constituting three independent doctors from different government hospitals with videography.

3. Case was registered under Section 302 IPC, petitioner was arrested and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed under Section 302/201 IPC before the court of Additional Sessions Judge (hereinafter referred to as ‘ASJ’). The petitioner has previously filed three applications for seeking bail, however the same have been dismissed vide orders dated 20.08.2016, 29.09.2016 and 08.02.2017,
respectively.

11. From a perusal of record it is evident that none was present at the house/the place of incident except the petitioner/Nitika Gupta, deceased/Manish Gupta and their minor
daughter/Mishti Gupta. All the witnesses so far examined have deposed on the same lines that except the above named three persons they have not seen anybody in the house at the time of the incident.

13. Therefore in the present case, as only the petitioner was present at the place of incident alongwith her minor daughter, the onus would lie upon her to disprove the allegations levelled against her in the complaint. It is true that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. However, there are several features of the case, as apparent from the records, which prima facie appear to go against the petitioner for the purposes of the present petition. The evidence led by the prosecution clearly connects the petitioner with the offence” .

14.

The learned counsel for applicant­accused has relied upon
Cri. Bail Application No.1112/2022.

..7..

Mahesh Vs State of U.P. LAWS (ALL)­2010­8­496, wherein it is held that,
“4. It comes out that body of one Sukhdeo alias Sukai was found to be hanging in a mango tree on 26.11.2007 and the same was taken down. Postmortem was conducted and FIR was lodged on 27.11.2007 by one Jagannath apprehending therein that his younger brother Sukhdeo alias Sukai has been done to death by the appellants and their associates while strangulating him and just to convert the case of murder into suicide they hang his body on the mango tree.

Argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is that in the postmortem report it has been shown that the deceased has died due to asphyxia and ante mortem injury (handing). There is no such evidence so as to implicate the appellants with respect to commission of the crime. The case falls within the parameters of circumstantial evidence, even such circumstance has not come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the deceased has died or last seen with any of the accused persons. It is submitted that appellants were on bail during the course of trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to them. It is further submitted that the appellants are in jail for a considerable long period.

5. In any case, at this juncture, we find that it is a case of circumstantial evidence chain of which is not so strong and complete so as to convict the appellants under Section /IPC.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting any further on merit of the case, we find it a fit case for bail”.

However, on the facts of the present case the ratio is not helpful to the applicant­accused while deciding the present bail application.

Though the investigation is over and charge­sheet is filed in the court of learned JMFC, Igatpuri, as it is already mentioned above the applicant­accused misguided the police machinery by submitting false information and therefore, considering the fact that the applicantaccused is facing charges of murder of her own husband, I am not inclined to grant the bail application. The application is devoid of merit
..8..

and liable to be rejected. Hence, following order.

O R D E R
1.

Bail Application bearing No. 1112/2022 is hereby rejected.

2.

Inform to the concern police station accordingly.

SHINDE
Digitally signed by
SHINDE MADHAV
MADHAV
A
A
Date: 2022.09.22
11:45:57 +0530
( M. A. Shinde )
Date­21.09.2022
Additional Sessions Judge­9,
Nashik.

Document Outline