IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1135/2009 (Shital @ Ashish Chaudhari - vs. State of Mah.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 24th APRIL, 2009 Heard Shri Mardikar, Advocate for the applicant and Shri Thakre, A.P.P. for state. Applicant is facing trial for the offence under section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C. arising out of crime no.167/20089 of P.S. Nandgaon Khandeshwar. The allegations against the applicant are that she along with other accused had caused death of one Ashish Choudhari. It may be stated that he was found dead near Nisarg Hotel at Nandgaon Khandeshwar on 2.11.2008. The death of the deceased appears to be homicidal, as it appears that, the legs were tied by wire, so also his hands. There was bleeding from the mouth. There is no difficulty in saying, prima facie; that this is a case of homicidal death. The question is what evidence is appearing against the present applicant. As the case appears to be based on circumstantial evidence, learned APP tried to make out a case that applicant and deceased was last seen together along with others prior to his death. Statement of witness Manjusha shows that she had received a telephone call from deceased at 11.40 p.m. that one Umesh was with him for; sleeping in the hotel. He had also intimated that his mobile battery was down and she should not worry. Later on in the next morning his dead body was seen. Thus it appears that last seen theory is applicable in respect of accused Umesh who has incidentally; not applied for bail. Statement of other witness namely Rajendra does not show that just prior to the death of the deceased, the applicant was noticed with the deceased or it could be inferred that he was in the company of the deceased, in contrast with the case of Umesh. Thus the evidence the applicant appears to be some what weak as regards the last seen theory. In these circumstances, applicant would be entitled for bail. Applicant be released on bail on his furnishing surety and PRB of Rs.25000/- subject to conditions that he shall report Police Station Nandgaon Khandeshwar on first Sunday of each month at 11.00 a.m. until further orders, or till the trial is over and he shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution evidence. Bail in trial court. Application stands disposed of. Hamdast granted. It is made clear that, the above observations are in prima facie view of the matter and same shall influence the trial court, while deciding the case on merits. JUDGE smp