1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2495 OF 2010 Krishna S/o.Sitaram Landge, Age-24 years, Occu-Agriculture, R/o.Jatode, Tq.Shirpur, Dist. Dhule APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Mrs.S.S.Jadhav, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, learned APP for State CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J. DATE : 20/07/2010 PER COURT : 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.39/2010, registered in Shirpur Police Station of Dist. Dhule for the alleged offence punishable u/s.302, 201 r/w. 34 of IPC, in which the applicant was arrested on 03/02/2010. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of J.M.F.C. Shirpur on 26/04/2010. The trial is committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule and is numbered as Sessions Case No. 74/2010. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned APP for State. Perused the papers of investigation till carried out. Other relatives of applicant like his parents and others were already released on bail by the Trial Court. 3. Considering the submissions across the bar, it is to be inferred that the present case is a case based on circumstantial evidence. Admittedly, deceased Surekhabai got married with applicant somewhere in the year 2005-06. From the said wedlock, she had delivered one male child in the month of November 2008. The family of the applicant and others are having 2 house properties in village Jatode, one is bearing house property no.288 and another is 246/2. The alleged incident took place in the intervening night in between 02/02/2010 and 03/02/2010, may be in the early hours of 03/02/2010. It is contended across the bar and also revealed from the spot panchnama that so far as the house property bearing no. 288 is concerned, it is used by the family of the applicants for storage of agricultural equipments. This property is divided in two parts. The outer part of the property is used as storage while the inner part is used by the family members as a bed-room. It appears that in the early hours of 03/02/2010, as the applicant woke up on hearing cry of his son, he noticed that his wife was not with him, hence he tried to search her and noticed the dead body of his wife in hanging condition. Immediately, message was given to the parents of deceased. ADR was recorded and during the ADR, after completing all formalities, the dead body of Surekha was sent for post mortem. 3 It is opined by the Medical Officer that the probable cause of death of Surekha is due to strangulation. Then the FIR was registered not at the instance of parents of the deceased, but at the instance of police official as according to the parents of deceased, they have no complaints of any illtreatment or any illegal demand at the hands of applicant and others and they have no suspicion against applicant and his family members that they might have killed their daughter Surekha. 4. During the investigation, statement of the neighbourers and the parents of the deceased were recorded. So far as those statements are concerned, there are no incriminating circumstances against the present applicant and others. Certain injuries were found on the person of the deceased. At the same time, during the course of submissions, it is brought to the notice of this Court that certain injuries were found on the person of the applicant as well as relatives of applicant, who were released on bail by the Court below. The papers of investigation discloses that even though no suspicion was raised by the family members of the deceased about the involvement of applicant and others, in connection with the death of deceased Surekha, but some outsiders had assaulted applicant and his family members and due to that certain injuries were noticed on their person. 5. Now the fact remains that as the case is based on circumstances, and the charge sheet is already filed after completion 4 of investigation, then there is no scope for applicant or anybody else to tamper the evidence of prosecution. Considering the period, which the applicant has undergone, a case is made out to enlarge him on bail, hence order : O R D E R 1. Application is allowed. 2. 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. 3. After released on bail, applicant not to contact with the prosecution witnesses whose statements were recorded during the investigation. 4. Application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JULY 2010/cri-appl-2495-10