( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3189 OF 2010 Sahadu s/o Kashinath Ambekar, R/o Kolewadi Shivar, Taluka Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra through Rahuri Police Station, Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. RESPONDENT .... Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 26th August, 2010] PER COURT : 1. This is an application for bail under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The applicant is arrested on 4th June, 2010 in pursuance to the FIR lodged by his real brother for alleged offence of committing homicidal death of the wife of his brother (complainant). 3. The prosecution case is that the brothers were ( 2 ) residing separately. An agricultural land of 4 acres was standing in the name of their mother by name Sakharbai. So also, agricultural land to the extent of 4 acres area stands in the name of the complainant and agricultural land to the extent of 5 acres stands in the name of the applicant (accused). The remaining land was mutated in the name of their father by name Kashinath. The first wife of the applicant and his son had filed a civil suit for partition and separate possession. He then agreed to give 2 acres land to them from the land which stood in the name of the mother. This was objected to by the complainant and his wife. There was a dispute on account of such arrangement made by the applicant. It appears that in month of March, 2010, measurement of the land was carried out and thereafter, wife of the complainant used to insist that the applicant shall give the land standing in his name to his first wife and the son and that the land standing in the name of the mother shall not be so transferred to them. For such a reason, the applicant was allegedly annoyed with wife of the complainant and used to frequently abuse her. It is alleged that on 2nd June, 2010, at about 10 a.m., wife of the complainant, namely, deceased Geetabai asked the applicant to segregate the share of the complainant and his family members. The applicant ( 3 ) declined to do so and threatened that he will eliminate them one by one. It is alleged that after completing some agricultural work, wife of the complainant started proceeding towards her house at about 1 p.m. due to pains in the back. The complainant is said to have seen the applicant going behind her with an axe in his hands. When the complainant and his son returned home in the noon, then they noticed that said Geetabai had not returned. They inquired about her with the relatives and others. She was not found though was searched for here and there. On next day, at about 1 p.m., her dead- body was found floating in an well situated in agricultural land of one Namdeo Dhondiba Kokate. The dead-body was taken out of the well after arrival of the police. The post-mortem indicated that she was strangulated and done to death. 4. The applicant alleges that he is arrested merely on suspicion and in order to revenge upon him due to the property dispute. He submits that he is not concerned with the homicidal death of deceased Geetabai. 5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. I have perused the investigation papers. ( 4 ) 6. The only material circumstance alleged against the applicant is that he and his son Pravin had seen the applicant leaving the agricultural land behind the deceased in the same noon. Both of them have stated that the applicant was having an axe with him while he was going behind deceased Geetabai. The post-mortem notes purport to show that cause of death was due to asphyxia on account of strangulation of the deceased by neck. The post-mortem notes do not show the probable time of the death of Geetabai. In other words, when she died and whether her death was in the proximity of the alleged circumstance of her being followed by the applicant, is not made clear from the investigation papers. Obviously, this solitary circumstance cannot be presently considered as vital circumstance to prima facie infer guilt of the applicant. The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the Court of Sessions on the sole ground that he was lastly found in the company of the deceased prior to her death. This circumstance may be of significance if probable time of death of the deceased is ascertained during course of investigation. 7. There is no other evidence on record except that of the complainant and his son to show that the applicant had followed deceased Geetabai in the relevant noon. Nor there is ( 5 ) any evidence to show that he was in the company of deceased Geetabai at the place near the well in which her dead-body was found. In this view of the matter, the applicant deserves liberty. 8. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond with one solvent surety in sum of Rs. 30,000/- and on condition that he shall not enter the limits of village Kolewadi till filing of the chargesheet and till completion of trial of the sessions case. The bail bonds to be furnished before the concerned Sessions Court and to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln3189-10