1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 2435 of 2009 Nilkanth v. State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr R.M. Daga, Adv for applicant Ms A. Parihar, APP for State Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 3rd August 2009 1. Heard Mr R.M. Daga, learned counsel for applicant and Mr A. Parihar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for State. 2. It is the prosecution case that present applicant and Smt Ushabai, wife of deceased Nilkanth had illicit relations with each other. On 16.7.2008 while applicant was in the company of Ushabai at her residence, Nilkanth came at about 02.30 pm. At that time, present applicant dealt blow of axe on the head of Nilkanth and thereby eliminated him. In the night time he put dead body of Nilkanth in a gunny-bag and threw it in the Kotra Dam water, tied with a stone. Crime No. 63/08 was registered at Salekasa Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code initially against unknown persons. 2 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that there is no direct evidence against applicant and the circumstantial evidence is very weak in nature. He submitted that group of blood stains detected on the baniyan of present applicant does not match with the blood group of deceased Nilkanth. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sattatiya alias Satish v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2008) 3 SCC 210. He submits that applicant is in jail since one year; he has old aged parents to support and applicant deserves to be released on bail. 4. As against this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He submitted that clothes viz. Blood stained full-pant and baniyan are recovered at the instance of applicant and the supplementary statement of eye witness Sevakram clearly implicates the present applicant. He prayed for rejection of bail application. 5. Perusal of statement of alleged eye witness Sevakram recorded on 21.7.2008, four days after the incident, does not implicate the applicant at all. His supplementary statement was recorded on 13.8.2009, nearly one month thereafter, wherein he has stated that he saw applicant dragging Nilkanth and while he was leaving, he heard some blowing sound. His statement, therefore, at this stage cannot be relied upon to deny bail. Moreover, blood group was not determined in C.A. Report so as to connect the present applicant in crime. Although blood stains on recovered clothes and weapon are found to be of human blood, the stains could not be linked with the blood group of deceased. In Sattatiya’s case 3 (supra), the Apex Court has held that in absence of link of blood stains found on alleged clothes and weapon with blood of deceased, it amounts to serious lacuna in the prosecution story and consequently, the accused therein was acquitted. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to direct release of the applicant on bail. Applicant be released on bail upon his executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount. Applicant shall not communicate with any witness or witnesses concerned with the case nor shall tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner. Applicant shall inform his fixed address to Investigating Officer and the Court concerned. Applicant shall not carry any weapon and shall not commit any crime while on bail. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Judge. hsj