1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (APPA) No. 233/2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 384/2009 Praful @ Prabhakar Ramaji Kohad vs. State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O., Arvi, Distt. Wardha. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Mr. Mukesh Rai, Adv. For applicant. Mrs. Nandita Tripati, APP for respondent. CORAM : MRS. V.K.TAHILRAMANI & M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ DATE : 03.05.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant and learned APP for respondent. 2. The applicant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of Indirabai. The applicant is now seeking bail. 3. There is no eye witness in the present case and the case is entirely dependent on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances against the applicant are; a) discovery of stone; b) false explanation given by the applicant regarding whereabouts of Indirabai and c) the applicant was absconding. 2` 4. As far as first circumstance is concerned, the evidence of panch witness P.W.7 Sabbir shows that there were no blood stains on the stone. Panchanama also does not show any blood stains on the stone. No witness has identified the stone as having been used in the incident. Looking to the evidence on record we find no material to connect the stone with the crime. 5. As far second circumstance is concerned, it is the prosecution case that Indirabai was not seen for a number of days, hence inquiry was made by P.W.1 Ramdas whereupon the applicant told him that Indirabai had informed him that she was going to Veni Khota. However, Indirabai was not found at Veni Khota. We find that much capital can not be made by the prosecution of this piece of evidence. 6. The last circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that after the body of Indirabai was found, the applicant disappeared from the village. Prima facie, we find that there is no other material on record to connect the applicant with the crime. Abscondance by itself is a weak piece of evidence. 7. Looking to the evidence on record, we are inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Hence, the following order. 3` a) The sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicant is suspended. The applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with surety in the like amount. b) Before being released on bail, the concerned Police Station shall be informed the address where he will reside during the period that he is on bail. c) The applicant shall attend the Police Station, Arvi, District: Wardha once in a fortnight during the pendency of the appeal. 8. Application disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE patle 4`