(ORDER BELOW EXH.1) ::1:: Criminal Bail Application No.1083/2022
Criminal Bail Application No.1083/2022

Vimal Yashawant Bagul

Vs.

State of Maharashtra (Surgana P.S.)

ORDER BELOW EXH.1

1] This bail application is filed u/s. 439 of Cr.P.C. for offence punishable under section 302, 307 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code in C.R.No.39/2022 registered at Surgana police station.

2] The facts of the prosecution case is that Mr. Vitthal Thakare r/o. Mhaiskhadak, Post – Umbarthan ,Tal.Surgana lodged complaint on 26.8.2022 that he came to know from his sister in law Sushila on
24.8.2022 at 8 a.m. that his elder brother Vasant Thakare (deceased) assaulted by unknown person and lying in unconscious condition in his farm. He went there with his relative they saw Vasant fell, in full of
blood. He brought him and admitted at rural hospital Surgana. He became conscious and informed that he was assaulted by Yashwant Bagul and Vimal Bagul with the help of wooden plank (Musal) . He
further stated that he went to the police station and met applicant and her husband who informed that accused committed voluntarily sexual assault on their daughter by name (xxx). (xxx) was playing outside and went in the house of Vasant and when she came crying outside they got suspicious about immoral act at the instance of Vasant and therefore Tuesday early in the morning they assaulted Vasant for immoral act with their daughter. The patient was admitted at GMERS Civil Hospital Vaslad, Gujrat and he succumbed to injury on 27.8.2022 and the offence was registered under the aforesaid sections.

3] The facts of the applicant’s case is that she is woman.

Deceased Vasant committed voluntarily sexual assault on her three years old daughter accordingly offence was registered under the POCSO Act, 2012 in C.R.No.38/2022. Despite of understanding the seriousness of the act to the accused; he abused her and assaulted and in right of defence overact took place. It is further stated that she never assaulted him with an intention to commit murder. The alleged incident of assault took place on 24.8.2022 and complaint lodged on 26.8.2022. In these two days of intervening period deceased was stable. He did not made any allegations against the applicants. The FIR is nothing but the afterthought act to implicate the accused/applicant in false charges.

4] I have heard Ld.Adv.Shri.Patil for the applicant who vehemently submitted that it is afterthought case, two days delayed FIR, POSCO case is pending against deceased accused filed by the
applicant. She has 8 months baby child with her and 3 years old daughter (victim) at home which is exceptional case for the bail.

5] I have heard Ld.APP Shri.Kadave who vehemently submitted that eye-witnesses are local. After two days the injured succumbed to injury. Hence, prayed to reject the bail.

6] I have heard both side at considerable length. Perused application, say and case diary.

7] After perusal of the case diary it reveals that accused P.M. Short Report dated 27.8.2022 “Primary COD is person died due to lung related complications and shock associated with fractures of left valve.

The record reveals that FIR under Section 307 r/w. 34 of the IPC was filed at Surgana Police Station on 26.8.2022 at 22.05 hrs. whereas the alleged incident of assault by applicant and her husband took place on 24.8.2022 at 8 a.m. Now, it is crystal clear that there is delay in lodging FIR approximately 2 days 14 hours. The delay is not explained in FIR. It is true that the alleged incident was took place in sudden grave and sudden provocation at the instance of applicant and her husband as their 3 years old daughter was allegedly sexually harassed at the instance of deceased. The natural conduct of the applicant/accused that they went to ask deceased for the immoral overact and the alleged incident took place. It is defence taken by the applicant/accused that despite of making him understanding about seriousness of the act committed by the accused on their daughter; he assaulted applicant and
in the right of private defence; she resisted and assaulted and he sustained injury. But she has denied the act of murder. It is the trial which will decide exact role played by both the accused. Prima-facie it
seems that the accused is lady at the age of 30 years old. She is having 8 months baby with her in a jail and 3 years old daughter (victim) at home. It reveals in remand report that her baby’s custody has been
handed over to the grandmother. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances and the case and considering the facts that the applicant/accused is a lady and she is having 9 months old baby and 3 years old daughter (victim) at home and therefore without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case; I deemed just and proper to grant bail to the applicant/accused being lady under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

8] Taking into account of welfare of the 8 months child and 3 years old victim in C.R.No.38/2022, the life of new born child is at stage and she cannot left to face the stigma during her life. Hence, I am
inclined to pass following order as applicant being lady –

O R D E R

1.Bail Application below Exh.1 is allowed.

2.Applicant/accused Vimal Yashawant Bagul be released on bail in C.R. No.39/2022 registered with Surgana Police Station for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code on furnishing P.

R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or two surety in like amount on following conditions.

(a) She shall attend Surgana Police Station on every Monday in between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. till filing
of charge-sheet.

(b) She shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses and his family members and also come in contact in any way with them and co-operate the investigation agency.

(c) She shall not repeat the offence.

(e) If she breach any of the abovesaid conditions it would be a cause to cancel the bail.

3.Criminal Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly.

( Dr. U. J. More ) District Judge-13 and Date : 14.09.2022. Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik.