1603appa72.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.72 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.637 OF 2011. Bharat Gajanan Paighan ..vs.. The State of Maharashtra, through its P.S.O. P.S.Bhadrawati, Distt.Chandrapur. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. B.M.Waranashiwar, Adv. for the applicant. Smt. B.P.Maldhure, APP for the State. CORAM : V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND PRASANNA B.VARALE, JJ. DATED : 16TH MARCH, 2011. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant – original accused and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant has been convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.Code for causing the death of his wife Sunita. The applicant is now seeking bail. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant – accused assaulted his wife Sunita with a spade due to which Sunita sustained multiple injuries on her head and she died. It is further the case of prosecution that there is recovery of bed-sheet and spade at the instance of the applicant – accused. However, it is noticed that 1603appa72.11.odt 2/2 the learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved the evidence of recovery. 4. The learned APP submitted that there is evidence that the accused made an extra judicial confession to two witnesses. To support her contention she has drawn our attention to the evidence of PW 4 Mandabai and PW 7 Sudarshan. As far as evidence of Sudarshan is concerned, we find that he has only stated that the accused came and told him that he had done some wrong. Therefore, we cannot place much importance on the evidence of PW 7, as his evidence does not conclusively show that the wrong referred to, was assault on Sunita. Thus, the prosecution case mainly hinges on the evidence of PW 4 Mandabai. Even this circumstance relates to extra- judicial confession. Thus, the only evidence against the accused is that of extra-judicial confession, looking to this fact and the fact that he had a history of mental illness i.e. Schizophrenia, we are inclined to release the applicant on bail. Hence, the following order. The applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. The applicant shall report to P.S.O., P.S.Bhadravati, Distt.Chandrapur once in a week till disposal of the appeal. Application is allowed in above terms. JUDGE JUDGE chute