{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3991 OF 2009 Vaijnath s/o Raghunath Gadhe Age-26 years, Occ-Agri R/o Kolha, Tq-Mudkhed Dist-Nanded APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through police Station, Mudkhed, Dist-Nanded RESPONDENT ....... Mr.G.P.Shinde, Advocate for applicant Mr.B.J.Sonawane, APP for the State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 9th December 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.45/2009 registered with Mudkhed police station for an offence punishable u/s 302 and 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation. It is informed that investigation in this case is already over and the charge sheet is also filed before the competent court of law on 10th September 2009. {2} 3. It appears that the alleged incident occurred on 31.05.2009, in respect of killing of the daughter of the complainant and thereafter the dead body of the deceased was burnt in the filed of present applicant by the applicant and husband of the deceased. It appears that this fact is disclosed to the complainant by his grant children, sons of deceased. Applicant claim that Sahebrao is his maternal uncle. It is alleged in the complaint that the deceased, along with husband and two children had been to Tirupati and returned back on 31st May 2009. On their way back from Tirupati, while they were proceeding towards their residence, the sons alleged that, their mother was strangulated by the father and one unknown person, who was accompanying with them and thereafter the dead body was burnt in the nearby field and hence the said offence. 4. According to learned counsel for the applicant other than the statements of two children, which are recorded during the investigation, there is nothing incriminating evidence against the applicant. It is alleged that no identification parade was held and applicant was arrested on 27th June 2009 and since then he is in jail. In the premise, it is requested to release him on bail. 5. Learned APP opposed the application as the offence is punishable for life imprisonment or death penalty. {3} 6. Perusal of papers of investigation discloses that as dead body was burnt on the very day, there are no chances of identification of the dead body as well as marks of violence. It appears that during the investigation, the ash was collected from the spot and was sent for chemical test. The Report is received. It is very strange that this report does not disclose that the said ash was an ash of human body. One can understand that as the dead body was burnt by the accused without notice to anybody else, at least that ash to speak that it is an ash of human body. Apart from it, if the case is accepted as it is, other than the statements of the small children, who were not able to disclose the name of the present applicant, before his arrest, there is nothing to infer the involvement of the present applicant. In the premise, case is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail. 7. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. The applicant shall not leave the local jurisdiction of Mudkhed police station without prior permission in writing from the concerned IO till the end of the trial. Application stands disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3991-09