1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3735 OF 2008 The State of Maharasdhtra ..APPLICANT VERSUS Bhausaheb Suryabhan Gote ..RESPONDENT Mr S.V. Kurundkar, A.P.P. for the applicant; Mr Abhijit Hajare, Advocate holding for Mr A.B. Kale for the respondent. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS, J. DATE : 27th November, 2009 PER COURT : The applicant - State being aggrieved by the order of the District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, dated 5.9.2008, in Misc. Criminal Application Nos.132 of 2008 and 137 of 2008 has filed the present application by which it seeks cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent. 2. One Mirabai Sarjerao Bade had lodged a report on 15.7.2008 intimating that her husband was missing since 29.6.2008. During the investigation it was revealed that Mirabai/accused no.5 had illicit relations with one Deelip Shinde for the last 8 to 10 years and her husband had 2 become aware about her illicit relations and on account of that there used to be frequent quarrels between her husband and said Deelip Shinde. It further transpired during the investigation that husband of Mirabai had left the house with one Subhash Saudagar. It appears that during the investigation statement of Mirabai came to be recorded in which Mirabai had disclosed that on 1.7.2008 accused Deelip Shinde had confessed to her that he had committed the murder of her husband with the help of the present respondent and others. The present respondent, therefore, came to be arrested and his facing a charge for offences punishable under section 302, 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court examined the papers of investigation and came to the conclusion that except the statement made by Mirabai/accused no.5 in respect of the extra-judicial confession of Deelip Shinde, there was no other material against the present respondent for justifying the rejection of his bail application. The Trial Court, therefore, allowed the application and directed the release of the present respondent on the respondent executing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount on the condition that he would make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required. 3. The applicant does not allege that any of the conditions have been breached by the respondents. It is urged before me that in the face of such strong prima facie material, bail ought not to have been granted by the Trial Court. 3 4. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the order impugned in the present application. It appears that apart from an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by Deelip Shinde to accused no.5 Mirabai, there is no other evidence worth the name which would connect to the present applicant with the commission of the offence. In that light of the fact, therefore, the grant of bail to the respondent cannot be challenged. In the light of that, therefore, the present application is dismissed. ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criap3735.08