1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.169 OF 2010 Abhijeet S/o.Pratap Rathod, Age-25 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Mandvi, Tq.Kinwat, Dist. Nanded APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through P.S.Mandavi, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded RESPONDENT Mr.G.P.Shinde, learned counsel for applicant. Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, learned APP for respondent State. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 20/01/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.24/2009, registered in Mandavi Police Station for the offences punishable u/s. 307, 325, 294, 452 of IPC which was registered on 16/07/2009 in which the present applicant came to be arrested on the very day and since then is in custody. After the investigation is over, charge sheet came to be filed in the said crime on 15/10/2009 and after passing the requisite committal order, the case against accused is committed 2 to the Court of sessions and numbered as Sessions Case No. 177/2009. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant followed by the submissions of learned APP for State. Also perused the papers of investigation. It is not under dispute that the said case came to be registered on the complaint of one Kamrunnisa Shaikh about the assault on her by the applicant in her house on the said date wherein she sustained 9 injuries, she was admitted in the hospital alongwith police yadi and after treatment, she was discharged. 3. Perusal of the injury certificate issued by the concerned medical officer shows that even though 9 injuries were noticed on the person of the complainant injured, all the injuries are simple in nature and not a single injury may result to cause death of complainant. It is sufficient to consider that this injury certificate is not sufficient to attribute that the alleged offence against the applicant is u/s. 307 of IPC. Then so far as the other acts are concerned, the only question arose, as the alleged incident occurred inside the house of complainant, there is no possibility of the independent witness to the said incident. There are no chances that the applicant may tamper complainant herself from her statement/complaint recorded on the basis of which offence came to be registered. As the investigation is over, now there are no chances of any tampering of witnesses. In view of the discussion of medical evidence supra, case is made out to enlarge the applicant accused on 3 bail, as he is in custody since more than 7 months. Hence order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. Applicant be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. 3. After released on bail, applicant not to tamper with the witnesses of prosecution. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JAN 2010/cri.appl.169-10