1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.192 OF 2010 Navnath S/o.Pundlik More, Age-40 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Sonkhed, Tq.Loha, Dist. Nanded APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mr.A.M.Gaikwad, learned counsel for applicant. Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 08/02/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.11/2009, registered in Sonkhed Police Station, in which earlier he was released on anticipatory bail on 17/04/2009, in which case, after completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed on 17/11/2009, hence he surrendered on 18/11/2009 before the competent court of law, where he applied for regular bail. By order dated 23/12/2009, his regular bail application came to be rejected and was taken in custody, hence approached this court for his release on bail in connection with same CR. 2 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP appearing for the State. Also perused the papers of investigation till carried out. 3. Considering the submissions across the bar as well as on perusal of the papers of investigation, it can not be disputed that the husband of deceased by name Ganesh was working as an agricultural labourer with the present applicant. On the day of incident, when the applicant questioned husband of deceased Ganesh, as why he has not put fodder before cattles, and then some quarrel took place between applicant and said Ganesh, in which the applicant thrown a brick/stone towards the husband of deceased Ganesh and at that time, deceased came in between, and due to that, the said stone/brick came in contact with the head of Shamabai. She was taken to the hospital, where she succumb to death. Even if the entire scenario is accepted as it is, as narrated by the witnesses as well as the complainant, who is mother in law of the deceased, at least at this juncture, there is scope to interfere in the order passed by the trial court as whether there is intention behind this act or not is a question to be decided at the time of trial, and not on the basis as the scenario is projected in the complaint, as well as in the statement of witnesses recorded, because on accepting these submissions as it is, at least at this juncture, no intention is to be gathered from the act of the applicant, and if it is so, the offence whether to be treated u/s. 302 of IPC or u/s. 304 of IPC, is a matter of trial, after an opportunity will be given to the prosecution to lead 3 evidence to support their case. If it is so, a case is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail, hence order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. After released on bail, applicant not to contact with the prosecution witnesses or to tamper with the witnesses of prosecution. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/FEB 2010/cri.appl.192-10