S.S.SHINDE,J. - (1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a 70 years old lady suffering from several ailments for last ten years. The Petitioner needs help of family members for walking and doing other day to day activities. He submits that even if the allegations in the First Information Report are taken at its face value and read in its entirety, alleged offences are not disclosed. It is submitted that even if the statements of the witnesses/ accompaniments of the chargesheet are considered, in that case also there are no any specific overt acts attributed qua the Petitioner. He submits that in absence of any specific incident, date of incident and overt act attributed as against the Petitioner, on the basis of the allegations in the First Information Report an alleged offences are not disclosed. Therefore, keeping in view the guidelines laid down in the case of State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal; AIR 1992 SC 604 and in particular guideline Nos.1 and 5, the Petition deserves to be allowed. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of Rupali @ Jyoti w/o Ganesh Kakade and others vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application No.2622 of 2016) decided on 11th January, 2017. In support of his submissions, learned counsel also placed reliance upon the Judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandralekha and others vs. State of Rajasthan and another; (2013) 4 S.C.C. 374 and Preeti Gupta and another vs. Stte of Jharkhand and another; (2010) 7 S.C.C. 667
(3.) On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State relying upon the investigation papers and accompaniments of the chargesheet, submits that the Petitioner is named in the First Information Report, and along with other accused overt act is also attributed to the Petitioner.;