:1: 907.appa.786.11 ata IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.786 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.510 OF 2011 IN SESSIONS CASE NO.407 OF 2010 Eknath Rangnath Pai ..Appellant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ____________________ Mr. Khan Abdul Wahab,for Appellant. Mr. D. P. Adsule, APP for State. CORAM :- NARESH. H. PATIL, & K. U. CHANDIWAL, J J. DATE :- JULY 8, 2011 P.C. Heard. 2 The applicant was convicted for committing murder of his wife for the offence punishable U/section 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced for life imprisonment and fine. 3 Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant has examined himself on oath as Defence witness No.1. He deposed that he is innocent. He deposed that when he tried to open the main door of :2: 907.appa.786.11 flat, he found that the door was latched from inside. He further deposed that the door was broke opened with help of a Watchman and thereafter he found that his wife was lying in the room. Thereafter Doctor Sequiera was called, he examined her and declared her dead. Post mortem was conducted. The Doctor opined that Deceased died due to strangulation. The Learned Counsel submits that at the stage of recording of the statement U/section 313 of CR.P.C. it was noticed that further Post mortem note was available in the file and the same was also brought on record ( Exhibit 57). The Learned Counsel submits that deceased died due to natural death. She was suffering from Epilepsy . She had undergone operation. There is no evidence to show that the Applicant had entered the flat soon before the incident was reported. 4 The Learned A. P. P has opposed the application on the ground that the medical evidence is against the theory of innocence of the Applicant. The evidence of Watchman does not support the defence. 5 We have perused the deposition, medical evidence and Post Mortem report which were placed on record. We have considered the submissions advanced by Learned Counsel for the Applicant. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. According to defence, the door was latched from inside. The spot panchanama dated 15th March, 2010 which was admitted by the defence shows that door of the house was latched from inside. PW-7 Dr. Pravin Bagul was also examined by the prosecution. PW-5 Dr. Sequiera deposed before the Court that he was called by neighbour of the applicant, he reached the house and examined the deceased. :3: 907.appa.786.11 6 Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and evidence brought on record, we find that the Applicant could be released on bail, but on certain conditions. a) The application is allowed. b) The Applicant be released on bail on his executing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/-with one surety in the like amount. c) The Applicant shall attend the Powai Police Station once in every three months. d) He shall furnish his residential address and Telephone Number to the Police e) In case the Applicant is having Pass-port, the same shall be deposited with the Police. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.) ( NARESH H. PATIL, J.)