{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.334 OF 2009 Walmik s/o Barku Tandale & Another APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.M.A.Manjramkar, Advocate for applicant Mr.N.R.Shaikh, APP for the State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 4th December 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present revision application, the applicants have challenged the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Aurangabad in Appeal No.1214/2009 by which the bail petition of the applicants is rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by the submissions of the learned APP. Perused the impugned order and papers of investigation. 3. The applicants are accused in an offence registered at {2} CR No.73/2009 with Khultabad police station for an offence punishable u/s 302, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is urged that though the other two accused are released by the learned trial court, yet the application of the present applicants is rejected and the said order is perverse to that extent and hence interference is required in the impugned order. 4. Considering the submissions advanced across the bar and on perusal of the PM report, it is clear that the death of the victim is a homicidal death. It cannot be disputed from the medical certificate that in view of the injuries at serial No.1 and 2 in column No.17 and at serial No.1,2,3 and 4 in column No.19, the death of the deceased is caused due to the said injuries. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the death has not caused due to the assault of the applicants. I am afraid, the said submissions cannot be accepted. 5. It require to consider as to whether there is any direct nexus between the injuries inflicted by the applicants and the death of the deceased. It is to be noted that during the investigation statement of son of the deceased and applicant No.1 came to be recorded. The said statement is recorded immediately after the alleged incident. The statement discloses that on the fateful day i.e. on 9th May 2009, in the afternoon a quarrel took place between the deceased and applicant No.1 and during the said quarrel, son of the applicant and deceased tried to intervene. It is {3} stated that the deceased escaped and ran towards the orchard. She was followed by the applicants and was assaulted and when she was fallen down on the ground, then the applicants assaulted her, which itself goes to show that when the son of the applicant No.1 and grand son of applicant No.2 is the eye witness to the said incident, then it cannot be said that the applicants are not responsible for the injuries sustained to the deceased which has resulted into her death. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants relied on the ruling in case “Dadaseheb V/s State of Maharashtra” reported in 2008 (2) BCR (Cri) 326. The ratio of the said judgment is not applicable to the present case for the simple reason that this is not a case of murder but it is a case of dowry death covered u/s 304-B and when there is no direct evidence, but the case is based on presumption. Further reliance is placed on the judgment in case of “Sudarshan V/s State of Haryana reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 35. In the said case, the offence against the applicant was not for an offence which is punishable with life imprisonment or death and hence the ratio of the said judgment is also not applicable to the present case. Learned counsel for applicant has also placed reliance on the judgment in case of “Satish V/s State of Maharashtra” reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 3066. It is observed in the said judgment that if the earning member of the family is involved in an offence then after {4} considering the welfare of the family bail should be granted. The ratio laid down in the said case nowhere touches the issue that if there is direct evidence against the accused of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment and inspite of that bail should be granted. In the premise, the observations of the above authorities are not applicable to the present case, as there is direct evidence against the accused. No perversity is found in the order of the trial court. 7. In the result, the revision, which is sans merits, stands dismissed. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/crirev334-09