{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 232 OF 2010 1. Ajinath s/p Gangadhar Pawar Age-29 years, Occ-Agri R/o Babra, Tq-Phulabri, Dist-Aurangabad 2. Laxmibai w/o Shivaji Bhadve Age-24 years, Occ-Household R/o Babra, Tq-Phulabri, Dist-Aurangabad 3. Shivaji s/o Mansaram Thorat Age-35 years, Occ-Agri R/o Nachanwel, Tq-Phulambri Dist-Aurangabad APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.N.S.Ghanekar, Advocate for applicants Mrs.Yogita M.Kshirsagar, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 25th January 2010 PER COURT: 1. This is an application by which the applicants have prayed to release them on bail in connection with CR No.46/2009 registered with Phulambri police station for an offence punishable {2} u/s 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants followed by the submissions of learned APP. Perused the papers of investigation carried out till today. 3. It appears that the said offence came to be registered on the complaint of one Rukmnbai on 18.05.2009 in respect of murder of her husband Raghunath Kale. As the dead body of Raghunath was found near the Phata, initially an ADR was registered at ADR No.17/2009. However, on 18.05.2009, wife of deceased lodged complaint against four persons. It appears that there was intimacy between applicant No.2 and the deceased and the deceased had gifted one mobile phone to applicant No.2. The said mobile is seized after arrest of applicant No.2. It further appears that the affair between applicant No.2 and deceased was not liked by the family members of applicant No.2 and according to the prosecution, this was the motive behind the murder. 4. Admittedly, the case rests on circumstantial evidence. It is to be noted that the circumstances against applicant No.2 is recovery of mobile phone, against applicant No.3 is recovery of wooden log while against applicant No.1 is recovery of mobile, a motor bike and cash in the sum of Rs.1,90,000/-, which was withdrawn by the deceased a day before the alleged incident. {3} 5. Probable cause of death is shown as due to head injury. Three superficial injuries were found on the person of the deceased. No witness is coming forward to depose that the decease was seen in the company of the applicants soon before or soon after the incident. Though one mobile phone is recovered near the dead body and call registered of the same is checked, nothing is found that there was contact between the deceased and applicant No.1 or applicant No.2 on their respective mobile phones, which are seized during the investigation. In the premise, it cannot be inferred that there was contact between applicants and deceased in the late night of 15 th or in the early hours of 16 th May 2009. In absence of any witness on the point of last seen together, and as the case rests on circumstantial evidence and in view of the fact that the investigation is over and the applicants are behind the bars for a considerable period, case is made out to enlarge the applicants on bail, however by imposing certain conditions. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicants be released on bail on their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each and on executing PR bonds in the like amount. The applicants are prohibited from entering in entire Phulambri taluka till the trial of sessions Case NO.275/2009 is over. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/A10/criapln232-10